Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Territorial Army (Doncaster)

Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster, Central): What financial provision he has made for training Territorial Army cadets in Doncaster. [70491]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): As I have announced, we are fully committed to the cadet forces in this country and have made extra resources available to them.
The cadet detachments in Doncaster will continue to have six adult instructors and an officer devoted to their training. In addition, we plan to construct a new indoor rifle range for the cadets at Danum road.

Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the local Territorial Army squadron, the King's Own Yorkshire Yeomanry, has welcomed the announcements about the continuation at Danum road of the cadet force, and I am sure that it will welcome today's announcement.

However, is he aware of the concern that the Danum road centre may be open for perhaps only two evenings a week and the occasional weekend? Is he considering making the centre available for other youth training activities, to maximise the investment in it?

Mr. Henderson: We intend to ask the local Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations to make resources available to other youth organisations where appropriate and where that can help to add to the facilities provided for young people in Doncaster. We also welcome the support in Doncaster for the improvements to the cadet facilities.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is the Minister aware of the increasing difficulty in providing the necessary facilities for cadets with so many TA camps and training grounds closing?

Mr. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there must be changes. Most cadet units meet not in TA centres but in schools and other places, and that will continue unchanged. The vast majority of cadet units that meet in TA centres will continue to meet where they have met traditionally. Those forced into changes because of the general changes to the estate of the TA will receive facilities that are at least as good as those they have at present and, in some cases, the facilities will be improved.

Oral Answers to Questions — Deployment (South-east Europe)

Mr. David Heath: What is the current deployment of British armed forces personnel in south-east Europe. [70492]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): There are currently some 5,675 British armed forces personnel deployed in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Greece. That number excludes defence attaché staff.
The House will wish to be aware that the Government decided on Friday to authorise the deployment of some 2,225 personnel to Greece and Macedonia as the advance element of the UK's contribution to any NATO-led peace implementation force in Kosovo. These are the personnel of the lead armoured battle group and 4 Armoured Brigade headquarters, whose heavy equipment and vehicles were deployed following the announcement that I made to the House on 11 February. This further advance deployment of equipment and personnel represents prudent military planning to ensure that the UK can continue to play its part in bringing about a peaceful settlement in Kosovo.
I hope that the peace talks jointly chaired by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will lead to a successful outcome, including the need for a NATO-led military force to underpin the agreement. However, we cannot be certain that that will happen. If agreement is not reached, the UK will be prepared to act with our allies to take whatever measures are necessary to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.

Mr. Heath: I share the Secretary of State's view, and we all hope for a successful outcome from Rambouillet. Does he agree that, if President Milosevic accepts the political, but not the military, outcome of those talks, bombing alone will not secure peace in Kosovo? Has he had any discussions with his counterparts in Russia on the concept of including within the NATO-led peace implementation force a component from Russia, particularly given the skilful and distinguished role that those troops played in Bosnia?

Mr. Robertson: The only thing that will guarantee peace in Kosovo for the future is a political agreement to which both sides subscribe. That is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been working towards with his colleagues at Rambouillet during the past two weeks. My right hon. Friend deserves the commendation of the House for the effort and energy that he has put into the talks. The talks are continuing, and it is not for me to predict how they will go up to the deadline that was fixed for tomorrow afternoon. We would like to avoid all violence, and the troops deployed to Greece and Macedonia are there as a precaution—a prudent military contingency for what we hope will be an implementation force designed to supervise a peace agreement, if that happens.
On Russia, we would all like to see a Russian contingent as part of any multinational force. The Russians are part of the stabilisation force in Bosnia and part of the Contact Group involved in the negotiations, and they have been unanimously behind the position taken up in the negotiations so far.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did my right hon. Friend see the moving obituary on Saturday by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) of the wartime Bomber Command hero, Group Captain Peter Johnson, which described how Hitler gave a fortnight's leave to any German soldier on the Russian front or in north Africa whose home had been destroyed? Is it not true that people whose families are bombed react with far more vigour and determination? What does he think the

effect on the Serbs will be of heavy bombing, some of which will undoubtedly hit civilian targets, however careful the bombers may be?

Mr. Robertson: No, I did not see the obituary, but if that hero were here today, he too would say that we must be robust in our approach to those who bully and intimidate, are responsible for disproportionate violence and take it out on civilians. We have always made it clear, up to and including the agreement reached with Ambassador Holbrooke last year, that Serbia must face the prospect of military action unless it is willing to abandon its uncivilised attacks on people in its own country. Both sides are around the table in Rambouillet. I hope, as we all must, that the sensible discussions will result in a political outcome that will avoid any further violence.

Mr. John Maples: There are British participants in the peace monitoring force in Kosovo; there is an increasing number of British troops in Macedonia; and there is the possibility that, within the next week or two, they may be deployed in Kosovo itself. Might bombing operations against Serbia begin while those monitors from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe are still in Kosovo, and how does the Secretary of State plan to ensure that they do not become hostages? Can he give the House a categorical assurance that there are no circumstances under which British troops going to Macedonia might be deployed in Kosovo other than as part of a peacekeeping force and pursuant to an agreement with Serbia?

Mr. Robertson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would not be prudent for me to speculate on what military action might follow if the Serbs were responsible for a breakdown in the negotiations at Rambouillet. Both sides should listen well to the messages that they are getting. The Kosovo Albanians should be aware that, if they do not engage in the serious business of the negotiations, they, too, are likely to pay a penalty. We are well aware of the role and effectiveness of the Kosovo verification mission, and its members' welfare is high on our safety agenda; but I shall say no more about that at present. Of course British troops will not be deployed in Kosovo unless there is an agreement for them to supervise.

Mr. Maples: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that assurance. May I take him a little further down this path? Paragraph 89 of the strategic defence review says that we can respond to a major international crisis of the nature of the Gulf war or to two crises: one on a Bosnia scale and another more limited, non-war-fighting deployment, for up to six months. Does that mean that, after any deployment into Kosovo, we will not be able to respond to a major international crisis like the Gulf war without withdrawing troops from the Balkans and that, within the force structure planned in the SDR, any Kosovo deployment could be maintained for only six months?

Mr. Robertson: The answer to the first part of that question is no: it does not mean that at all. The strategic defence review planning assumptions were planning tools, intended to guide the development of our long-term force structure, not to provide a template for specific


operational commitments. As we explained throughout the review, we may, in particular circumstances, decide to do less than the assumptions provided for, and we may be able to do more. The defence review planning was based on being able to mount two concurrent operations at full brigade level. Maintaining deployments in Bosnia and Kosovo will be very demanding, but the overall forces involved are not of the same order.

Mr. Eric Martlew: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the deployment of ground troops in Kosovo? As he will be aware, my local regiment, the King's Own Royal Border Regiment, has been serving in Macedonia since December. The Christmas before that, the regiment served with distinction in Bosnia and, yesterday, there was press speculation that it was likely to spend next Christmas in Kosovo. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not ideal, and will he do everything possible to ensure that the regiment spends next Christmas in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to his local regiment, and I pay tribute to it for giving up both those Christmases in the interests of international law and order. It serves in Macedonia at present as part of the extraction force, who are colloquially known in NATO as the "dentists". The circumstances are inhospitable, but the work is very necessary. If the negotiations at Rambouillet are as successful as we all hope, we will be able to consider force configuration later in the year. 1 am conscious of the obligations that our troops have taken on, and I do not lightly agree to the deployment of troops unless I have clear military advice that such deployment is necessary and that they can cope with it. I much admire and deeply respect the commitment of our armed forces, who are willing to take on commitments to stop massacres and violence such as happened towards the end of last year in Kosovo, and which would almost certainly return if the pressure were taken off.

Sir Peter Emery: May I return the right hon. Gentleman to the subject of the safety of the OSCE monitors in Kosovo? There are now more than 2,000 there, of whom 350 are British. If bombing happens, would it not be much more likely that they would be attacked by Serb forces? What are the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts in his work with the OSCE management about the safety of those men? They are unarmed and they do a magnificent job, which I am sure that the whole House would wish to support.

Mr. Robertson: I know that the whole House supports what they are doing and recognises the commitment and bravery involved. Major-General John Drewienkiewicz, who is in charge of the monitors, is a man of substantial quality, whose advice we take on an almost daily basis. We are conscious of the role that the monitors perform in Kosovo and the need for them to be the eyes and ears of the outside world in a situation that can change from moment to moment. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the monitors' safety is of paramount importance and high on our agenda in any planning that we undertake.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sierra Leone

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on recent involvement by United Kingdom military forces in Sierra Leone. [70493]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The presence of HMS Westminster and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Goldrover off the coast of Sierra Leone demonstrates the United Kingdom's continuing commitment to the Government of Sierra Leone and ECOMOG, and to promoting peace and stability in the region. Those ships, and the troops embarked, have provided much needed humanitarian assistance.

Mr. Mackinlay: Since the restoration of President Kabbah, what troops or units have embarked for Sierra Leone, what was their role, have they been involved in any firing on receipt of firing, and what were the rules of engagement?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend probably knows the answers to his questions.

Mr. Mackinlay: I have not had the brief today.

Mr. Robertson: If my hon. Friend has sat through all the sessions of the Foreign Affairs Committee and does not know that HMS Norfolk preceded HMS Westminster, he is not living up to the high standards that I have always expected of him. I am sure that he does not need a specific briefing. Both those Royal Navy ships and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels with them have given outstanding help, and the trouble and time that they have taken have been deeply appreciated by the Government of Sierra Leone. The rules of engagement are the normal rules that apply in such circumstances, and allow them to return fire only if they are under attack and lives are at risk.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Our armed forces are severely overstretched, the Government are planning a possible large-scale intervention in Kosovo and there is bombing in the Gulf: does not Sierra Leone add just one more overseas operation to the list and expose us to even greater overstretch? At what point will the Government decide either that our armed forces are too small for the jobs that they are expected to do, or that the Government's eyes are too large for their stomach?

Mr. Robertson: We do what we can, as a country and as regards our armed forces. The Government must deal with what we inherited after the previous Government's pretty savage cuts to the Ministry of Defence budget and to the numbers employed in the armed forces.
However, the hon. Gentleman makes the perfectly reasonable point that from time to time a judgment has to be made about what can be done and what can be expected from the people under one's command. That is why we have been able to provide, by means of two Royal Navy warships, considerable help to the authorities in Sierra Leone. They have been outstanding in the humanitarian assistance that they have given. In the past few months, the Government have also been able to give sizeable economic assistance and non-lethal equipment to those serving in Sierra Leone, but there is no intention of becoming militarily involved in that part of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — Land Mines

Ms Dari Taylor: When he expects to complete Britain's land mine destruction programme. [70494]

Mr. Peter L. Pike: When he expects to complete Britain's land mine destruction programme. [70495]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I am pleased to announce that we have now destroyed the last of the Army's operational stocks of anti-personnel mines. That is a significant milestone and yet another vivid demonstration of our commitment to the obligations that we accepted when ratifying the Ottawa convention.

Ms Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome reply. Will he join me in welcoming the action of the Churches, which will ring their bells on 1 March, the start of Land Mines Awareness Week, to celebrate the signing of the Ottawa convention and, in muffled form, to remind us of the horrors that still happen as a result of land mines? Will other stocks of land mines, such as those held by the Royal Air Force, also now be destroyed?

Mr. Robertson: I join my hon. Friend in commending all those bodies—the Churches, the non-governmental organisations and the rest—that have brought the matter of land mines to public attention. They caught the imagination of people across the world and they must share in the credit for the fact that the Ottawa convention will enter into force on 1 March.
At a small ceremony at lunchtime today, I was able to present the last of the British Army's operational land mines—suitably defused—to representatives of the British Red Cross, Care International, the Mines Advisory Group and the Halo Trust, as a testimony to the work done by those bodies. We all remembered with great regard the contribution made by the late Princess of Wales to that work. The last of the defused land mines was given to the imperial war museum, and I hope that, certainly for the British Army, land mines are a matter of history and not of the future.
As for the remaining anti-personnel land mines, which are a sub-munition of the JP233 airfield denial weapon, I expect that they will all be destroyed by the end of this year.

Mr. Pike: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the content of those answers. However, in many parts of the world, land mines are not yet history, but are still laid in the countryside. What assistance can the United Kingdom give in getting rid of land mines that remain a threat in those places?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not the end, but the beginning of the end, of the land mine campaign. Internationally, we must still deal with those countries that have not yet subscribed to the Ottawa convention, and everyone in the House must use whatever influence he or she has in persuading those countries to sign up to the obligations that the House unanimously took up on ratification.
We must also do more about humanitarian demining and clearing away the legacy of previous wars. I am proud of the contributions made by the UK and by my Ministry in setting up the mine information and technology centre at Minley and in delegating an Army colonel to the Geneva-based humanitarian demining centre and through the other elements in the 10-point programme that I announced last year. We are contributing to solving a global problem on which our minds must be constantly focused if we are to make the world safe for children to walk in all its fields.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Secretary of State's statement that this is the beginning of the end seems over-optimistic. Will he remind the House just how many countries with which we are rarely in agreement, and which have large stocks of land mines, have not even started their land mine destruction programmes?

Mr. Robertson: I believe in leading by example. Today's announcement comes four years ahead of the date on which the Ottawa convention makes destruction of our stocks mandatory. We have no land mines left, and I can say with conviction, and with pride, that no British soldier will ever again lay an anti-personnel land mine. I hope that countries that are still manufacturing, exporting, transferring and—in some appalling cases—using land mines will pay heed to that example.

Mr. David Prior: Is the Secretary of State aware of any evidence that there is any decline yet in the production of land mines?

Mr. Robertson: International pressure is on the countries that manufacture land mines. The significant number of nations that have signed the Ottawa convention, and that have allowed it to come into operation from next week, will make that pressure unsustainable. Producing countries will have to recognise that the world community as a whole regards land mines as an unacceptable form of warfare. Those countries still involved in production will soon realise that they are isolated from a world community that has turned its back on a weapon that is both morally indefensible and militarily unacceptable.

Oral Answers to Questions — Army (Retention)

Mr. Nicholas Soames: What steps he is taking to improve retention in the Army. [70496]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): The Government and the Army are committed to achieving full staffing by around 2004. We are, therefore, properly focusing our efforts on both recruitment and retention. The Army's human resources strategy, which puts people first, provides the foundation on which the Army will obtain, retain and sustain its most important assets. An action plan has been produced to support that human resources strategy. It will take forward both the strategic defence review's policy for people initiatives and other innovative measures that the Army has identified to enhance retention.

Mr. Soames: Does the Minister agree that retention is proving extremely difficult? I have every sympathy with


him on that, as I tried to wrestle with the problem myself for three years. Does he agree that all previous prescriptions have proved not to be as successful as they should have been? What new ground is he considering in the attempt to improve retention, which is probably the single most important personnel challenge facing him?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue facing the Army, and I am pleased that he recognises that there is no quick, easy solution to the problem of raising staffing numbers. I believe that we recruit a soldier but retain a family. It is important to address both ends of that spectrum. First, we have to extend recruitment and try to recruit more women and more people from the black and Asian communities into the Army. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the number of soldiers is now 18 per cent. higher than it was last year.
As the hon. Gentleman says, it is equally important to retain those who are in the Army. That is why we set up the service families task force, which examines issues such as how to ensure a better education for the children of those who serve in the Army—for example, how they can gain access to schools when they move from one location to another, and how their children can claim grants on their return to the United Kingdom after postings overseas. By examining those practical issues, addressing them and working through the agenda, we shall make remaining in the Army more attractive.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Is not the retention of black and ethnic minority citizens also important? Is it not true that, when the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) was Minister of State for the Armed Forces, there was so much racism and bullying in the armed forces that the Commission for Racial Equality nearly took the Ministry of Defence to court? The Labour Government have made much progress on stopping such racism; will my hon. Friend the Minister keep up the pressure? I hope that members of the black and ethnic minority communities will become senior officers in the Army and serve as role models, so encouraging others to join.

Mr. Henderson: It is crucial that all sections of the British community be approached by the Army, emphasising that it is a first-choice career for young people who might consider serving with us. However, it is important that we make an extra effort in the black and Asian communities, who comprise approximately 6 per cent. of the British population, but comprised less than 1 per cent. of the Army population until 12 months ago. The figures are improving because of recruitment targeting over the past 12 months. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that we are doing all we can, but that it is not easy to persuade people in those communities, which are often underprivileged, that their sons and daughters can have a good career in the Army.

Mr. Keith Simpson: From the questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), the Minister will be aware that Conservative Members too are concerned about retention, especially in the light of the poll carried out by the MOD before the strategic defence review took place: that poll

highlighted the fact that one of the main problems affecting retention was overstretch and the gaps between overseas exercises and overseas deployments. The Minister will be aware that, in a lecture last Thursday, the Chief of the General Staff made the point that the Army is more heavily committed than at any other time in peacetime and that, if the forces that are predicted for Kosovo are included, the proportion committed rises to 41 per cent. I have to say that many people are not taken—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Please ask a question.

Mr. Simpson: Many people are not taken by the Minister's statement. Will he tell the House whether he is prepared to go back to the Treasury and come up with more resources to meet that major shortfall?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman can either address the issue or try to make party political capital out of it. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) addressed the real difficulties we face in attracting more people into the armed forces, because that is what we have to do if we are to reduce the overstretch. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) recognises that. He should bear in mind the fact that the strategic defence review committed us to an increase of 3,500 people in our Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — Shipbuilding Industry

Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the role of the British shipbuilding industry as a supplier for his Department. [70497]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): British shipbuilding yards play an important role in supplying warships and major support vessels to the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The strategic defence review announced a large investment in the UK shipbuilding industry over the next 15 to 20 years through major warship programmes, including the future aircraft carrier, common new generation frigate and the future surface combatant. Those programmes will provide a secure long-term platform for the UK shipbuilding industry to continue to win work and increase its efficiency and competitiveness.

Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance, both current and historical, of shipbuilding to the people of the Wirral? Will he join me in congratulating McTay Marine, a company in my constituency that recently obtained an order for three passenger transfer vessels for use in naval base areas; and will he join me in acknowledging the high quality of the vessels that the company has supplied to the MOD in the past? Does he accept that the people of the Wirral yearn for shipbuilding to be restored to the GEC Marine site at Cammell Laird? That is not in my constituency, but in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field); however, such a development would provide jobs and employment for and utilise the existing and growing skills of my constituents.

Mr. Spellar: Like my hon. Friend, I greatly welcome the regeneration of shipbuilding in the Wirral area.
We are also very much aware of the vital contribution that that industry has made in the past. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that arrangements have been made for an MOD team to visit Cammell Laird on 19 March to brief it about the aircraft carrier programme, with a view to assisting that fine company in becoming a potential participant in such programmes.

Mr. Michael Colvin: In his first reply, the Minister did not mention ro-ro transport. I thought that the Ministry of Defence had plans to lease ro-ros. In confirming what those plans are and when they will come into force, will the Minister refer also to another heavy-lift leasing arrangement for C 17 transport? Will those leases, which are for seven years, be converted into purchases at the end of the day and what will happen to the future large aircraft in the meantime?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman should have probably asked the second part of his question later.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That question was totally out of order. I shall proceed and call a Government Member who has a question about shipbuilding.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I remind my hon. Friend—if he needs any reminder—that there are three first-class yards on the Clyde: Ferguson's, Yarrow and Kvaerner. My constituents who are employed at Kvaerner sincerely hope that the company will secure the orders for the ro-ro vessels. Given that such vessels will be used by the MOD, will the Minister confirm that he will accept tenders only from United Kingdom yards—preferably from Kvaerner?

Mr. Spellar: We are keenly aware of the interest expressed by Kvaerner as part of a consortium. We have told any potential private finance initiative tenderers seeking to provide vessels that they will have to demonstrate to the MOD that UK build is being considered in any alternative proposals. We hope that British yards will submit competitive bids. My hon. Friend also mentioned Yarrow, which is an extremely successful warship yard that has constructed about 70 per cent. of ships since 1990. The future of British naval shipbuilding has good prospects, and we are working with the industry on that front.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: When the Minister or MOD representatives meet the all-party delegation tomorrow to discuss the Kvaerner consortium bid, are we likely to receive a clear answer? A big problem facing people in the local area is continuing uncertainty.

Mr. Spellar: All bids are being considered and evaluated at this stage, so it would be premature to give any indication of the outcome. As I have said, we are very pleased with the interest that Kvaerner has shown. It is a very viable bid, but it would be premature to state whether one bid or another will be successful.

Oral Answers to Questions — Gulf War Syndrome

Dr. David Clark: If he will make a statement on the progress of his investigations into Gulf war syndrome. [70498]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): A number of recently published research papers have presented strong scientific evidence that Gulf veterans report more illness than other comparable groups. That demonstrates the importance of the programme of work that the Ministry of Defence is already undertaking to address Gulf veterans' health concerns, which includes a portfolio of Ministry of Defence-funded scientific research. We are determined to do all that we can to understand why some veterans of the Gulf conflict are now ill.

Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the positive way in which the Government are addressing the incredibly complicated issue of Gulf war veterans who are clearly suffering from illnesses. The Minister will know that, according to convention, after six or seven years the onus of proof switches against the claimant—that is, the veterans. Will he assure the House today that that will not occur in the case of the Gulf war veterans?

Mr. Henderson: I recognise my right hon. Friend's interest and expertise in this subject. I am pleased to confirm that his interpretation is correct on this question.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is it not time that we cut through all these legal and scientific obstacles and paid proper compensation to these men and women? They may not be able to satisfy the difficult tests of legal and scientific causation, but it is perfectly clear to anyone who has listened to or met them that many of the people who went to the Gulf perfectly healthy have returned extremely unfit. Is it not time that the Government made an exception, as we did for the haemophiliacs who contracted the HIV virus through no fault of their own but as a result of being given contaminated blood? Surely Gulf war veterans deserve that kind of exception. Should we not pay them compensation without their having to establish fault or negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Henderson: The Government have made it clear that if there is an obligation to pay compensation, the Government will ensure that compensation is paid. Already, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, war pensions are applicable where certain persons who served in the Gulf seek to obtain them. It would be wrong if there was not equity of treatment, and the Government have a responsibility to make sure that people who have suffered in the service of the nation, wherever they served, are given that fair treatment. That must be the case, and it is right that it should be so. The Government's priority is not only to make sure that if compensation should be paid, it is paid, but to get to the bottom of what is wrong with people who served in the Gulf, why they are ill, what is the cause of their illness or illnesses, and what can be done to prevent this happening again.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Even before we get to the issue of compensation, should we not be examining the availability and consistency of treatment for people suspected of suffering from Gulf war syndrome? There is much variation in the expertise of those identifying Gulf war syndrome across the country.


Will my hon. Friend consider with the war veteran organisations what can be done in the interests of consistency?

Mr. Henderson: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a medical assessment programme under which doctors will examine any illness being suffered by veterans and then make recommendations, often referring those veterans, with advice, to local doctors or other health care providers. I cannot go further than that, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand. There is always a little difference in the treatment that doctors give, based on their own assessment of the difficulties being experienced by a particular individual. We have recently notified family doctors across the country of the potential illnesses with which people who served in the Gulf might approach them, and have made some suggestions on what treatment might be appropriate.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) spoke about variations in the treatment available in the United Kingdom. What contact is being made with the United States Department of Defense, which has also undertaken considerable research into Gulf war syndrome? Is the Minister aware that the depleted uranium used in armour-piercing warheads is not now considered to be the cause of Gulf war syndrome, and that the cause is more likely to be the cocktail of vaccinations given to troops prior to their entering the Gulf? What contact is being made with the United States, and is there a lesson to be learned?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. People from the United States and from Britain who served in the Gulf are suffering from an illness or illnesses. There is continual dialogue between my Department and the appropriate Department in the United States. I have read as widely as I can about what various medical and scientific sources believe to be the cause of the illnesses being suffered. I shall be visiting Washington on Friday to have talks with the United States Government on the progress that they are making. I am a believer in joint projects, where appropriate, with the United States to try to get to the bottom of these problems.

Mr. Llew Smith: Can the Minister inform the House about the research being conducted by or for his Department into the possible contributory effect of depleted uranium contamination to Gulf war illnesses?

Mr. Henderson: The Department is supporting and in many cases financing wide-ranging research into the possible causes of the illness suffered by some veterans who served in the Gulf. As I stated in a written answer, I hope to publish a paper shortly on the testing system that would be applicable in this country if any Gulf veterans believe that they have suffered from the pollution of depleted uranium.

Oral Answers to Questions — Defence Industry Consolidation

Mr. Gerald Howarth: If he will make a statement on his policy concerning defence industry consolidation in Europe. [70499]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The Government are committed to encouraging and facilitating the restructuring of the European defence industry so that it is globally competitive and can help to strengthen European defence. It is not for Government to prescribe the course that that restructuring will take or the structures to emerge. Those are primarily for industry to decide, based on its own commercial judgment.

Mr. Howarth: Given that the enlarged British Aerospace-GEC Marconi will constitute the third largest defence company in the world, and also given that any trans-border mergers between British companies and continental companies will inevitably limit our freedom of movement, I am sure that the House will welcome the Secretary of State's assertion today that that is primarily a matter for the companies themselves. As the Government are clearly standing back from the issue, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the Government's reaction would be were the enlarged British Aerospace to seek to merge with DASA or with Thomson?

Mr. Robertson: First, I shall make clear the legal position. The proposed merger of British Aerospace and Marconi will be subject to regulatory approval, and it is therefore not appropriate for me to comment on that at this stage. The views of the Ministry of Defence on the military aspects of the merger will be given in confidence to the regulatory authorities at the appropriate time.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about subsequent moves that might take place in European defence. As I said, that is a matter for the industry at a European level to decide. The Governments of the seven countries involved in the initiative have made it clear that we will do what we can as Governments to make sure that such rationalisation throughout the industry can take place. The European problem is that our industries lack the scale to be globally competitive. Rationalisation is therefore not a luxury, but a necessity: either we rationalise, or we will have no jobs left in this valuable and important industry.

Dr. Doug Naysmith: Will recent consolidation have any effect on the Department's future large aircraft project—a subject of great interest to my constituents in Bristol at both British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Robertson: The ability of the European industry to undertake such projects effectively and on the basis of value for money depends largely on their remaining competitive and staying ahead of the game. The Government are still committed to the future large aircraft project. We look forward to receiving the details that will inform the decisions that will be taken. The size and nature of the overall industry and our ability to stay alive in the global marketplace will depend on a rationalisation which I believe to be important and, in many respects, urgent.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for a second chance to ask a question.
The Secretary of State will no doubt welcome the establishment of the organisation for joint armament co-operation—known as OCCAR—involving Britain,


Germany, France and Italy. However, bearing in mind that we must not create a fortress Europe in the defence industries, what will happen if OCCAR, being a programme-based organisation, happens to have in its programme a project in which the Americans have an interest? Will the Americans be able to join OCCAR?

Mr. Robertson: I have received no indication of the Americans wanting to join OCCAR, whose purpose was co-operation among the European signatories. I was one of those signatories, and I believe that the organisation has great potential for the future. There is no intention to create a fortress Europe in the rationalisation or in the creation of OCCAR. However, we must recognise that a great European defence industry that employs so many people in so many countries, which in many instances is at the leading edge of technology and has made such a huge contribution to all our economies, will not be able to compete with the American giants in its present form. There will be choice in the international marketplace and there will be jobs in an industry that makes such a huge contribution, but things will have to change.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Property Portfolios

Sir Sydney Chapman: What proportion of the commissioners' assets are currently allocated to property portfolios. [70526]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The annual valuations as at 31 December 1998 are still being confirmed. At the end of 1997, the commissioners held 26.5 per cent. of their assets in property.
Asset allocation is reviewed annually by the assets committee and the review for the current year is under preparation.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner tell the House how the figure of 26.5 per cent. compares with, for example, the figure 10 years ago, just before the property industry went into recession? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real lesson to be learned is that the commissioners, within their self-imposed ethical restraints, should spread their investments across the spectrum rather than relying too deeply on one or two sectors?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. He might wish to know that at the end of 1997, 13 per cent. of the commissioners' assets were in commercial property, with 7.5 per cent. in agricultural property and minerals and 6 per cent. in residential property. As for the heart of the hon. Gentleman's question, about 10 years ago and into the early 1990s, 60 per cent. of the commissioners' portfolio was in property and about 30 per cent. in the stock exchange. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that

the commissioners, in looking after £3.5 billion-worth of assets, must get the balance right between property, stocks and shares and holding cash in reserve to take any opportunity that may be available for good investments.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I recognise that valuations are changing all the time in the sectors to which my hon. Friend has referred, but can he give any indication of the guideline percentage that the commissioners believe is right to have invested in property?

Mr. Bell: We constantly review our investment policy and strategy so as to get the balance right. Given the movement in the world's stock markets, which has generally been upwards—certainly in our own stock market—we are satisfied that the present balance between property rights, investments in stocks and shares and the holding of cash for future investment is proper.

Oral Answers to Questions — Church Vandalism

Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on plans to reduce crimes or acts of vandalism against churches. [70528]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I am well aware of the nature of the problem of vandalism against churches. On average in a given year one church in three will make an insurance claim relating to a malicious attack on a building. Responsibility for the care of church buildings lies locally with the parochial church council but the Church both at the centre and in the diocese is well placed to give support to parishes in tackling this issue.

Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, be it in Heswall, Bromborough, Bebington or Eastham, churches are often vandalised? This might take the form of graffiti on the wall, interior desecration or gravestones knocked down, for example. Is my hon. Friend aware also that this serious and deep-felt problem is growing and needs to be contained? Will he consider an extension of the church-watch scheme or encouraging parishes to promote youth projects, or other solutions to that serious issue?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to what is a sad and serious problem. The Church must balance the fact that we need access to our churches for prayer, contemplation and meditation with the need at the same time to keep churches locked for security purposes. My hon. Friend makes a valid point in drawing attention to certain schemes that are extant, and I draw his attention to a further scheme which is the first Church risk management group, which has been established for the diocese of Leicester. This group will visit parishes and assess and advise on potential risks. It will work closely with the diocesan advisory committee and appropriate outside agencies to improve fire safety, crime reduction levels and risk management in all church property. The scheme has already attracted much interest


and it is possible that it may be promoted nationally. I will add my hon. Friend's suggestions to the list that has already been made and ensure that they reach the appropriate authorities.

Mr. John Bercow: In the light of the recent Second Reading of the Employment Relations Bill, what discussions has the hon. Gentleman had with the Church Commissioners regarding fair treatment of members of the clergy?

Mr. Bell: I would hope that the Church will be extremely fair to all its clergy and will take that legislation into account. There are discussions on that issue in the General Synod, as well as among the Church Commissioners, and we take the question of charity at home very seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions — Commissioners' Responsibilities

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: For what areas of work the commissioners have responsibility following their reconstitution on 1 January. [70531]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners continue to manage our assets to meet our pension and other legal commitments and to provide a sustainable level of support for the parochial ministry over the long term, especially in areas of need and opportunity. We are also responsible for the support of bishops and for the administration of the legal framework for pastoral reorganisation and setting the future of redundant churches.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is clear that the Church Commissioners will have greatly expanded responsibilities in the run-up to the millennium because many areas of the Church will not only require positive monetary support but the benefit of those commissioners' great imagination as they look towards their future duties. What suggestions has my hon. Friend about the way in which their responsibilities can be expanded?

Mr. Bell: The Archbishops Council has been created to provide a focus for leadership within the Church, and it will certainly include the qualities of dynamism and imagination. In line with its strategic role, the council is now responsible for distributing the income made available from the commissioners' assets for the support of the parochial ministry. It has also taken on the responsibilities formerly held by the commissioners for recommending clergy stipend levels and setting parochial fees.
You will be glad to know, Madam Speaker, that the commissioners are still responsible and accountable to this House through the Second Church Estates Commissioner. The commissioners will continue to answer questions in the House of Commons and to lay our annual report and accounts before Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Scotland

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: How many (a) service and (b) civilian personnel are currently (i) deployed and (ii) based in Scotland. [70500]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): As at 1 July 1998 there were 14,208 service and 9,194 civilian Ministry of Defence personnel based in Scotland.

Mr. Savidge: Whether or not Napoleon was really a Scot, with his hand stuck in his wallet pocket, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that he does not view the thousands of Scots who serve in our British forces as quasi-mercenaries
tainted by their association with England",
to quote the notorious words of the defence spokesman of the Scottish National party, whose members are absent?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The nationalists' policies on defence are ill-considered, ill-judged and militarily unbelievable. To attack the Scots Guards, which is a proud and brave Scottish regiment, in the terms that the SNP deputy spokesman on defence did, highlights that party's fantastic view of such a major component of Britain's make-up. If the SNP took control and pulled Scotland out of NATO and into isolation—when every other country in Europe, it would appear, wants to join that organisation—Scotland the brave would be transformed into Scotland the isolated.

Mr. Robert Key: The Government have announced that service and civilian personnel deployed and based in Scotland and the north of England are to have a joint headquarters in Edinburgh. Was that decision based on military and operational cost-effectiveness and nothing else? Were there no other political or financial considerations behind that decision?

Mr. Robertson: No, there were not. We considered the military and cost-effectiveness arguments for where the headquarters should be located, and we looked into the other arrangements that would apply to York. We came to a considered judgment that Edinburgh was the right place for the divisional headquarters in the United Kingdom.
We are all part of the United Kingdom, and some of us have every intention of ensuring that we remain so. The decision had no other implications, but it is a good signal that the British Army is still the British Army and plays a proud part in our affairs. Like many people I know, it would reject the idea of Scotland being torn out of the Union and the British armed forces being ripped up in some political squandering by a separatist party.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could confirm whether


any of the 200 Fijians he hopes to recruit from Fiji will be stationed in Scotland? Will he confirm whether that is a realistic proposal, as reported in Jane's Defence Weekly? From what other countries is he attempting to recruit soldiers into the British Army?

Mr. Robertson: I saw the Fijian soldiers on parade at the Edinburgh tattoo. They gave a fine display, and I

understand that they beat practically every military and civilian rugby team that they were up against. Members of the Commonwealth serve in the British armed forces, but I am glad to say that, with an 18 per cent. increase in recruitment figures compared with this time last year, we shall depend on them much less than we would have done had the situation that we inherited continued.

Stephen Lawrence Report (Injunction)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement about the injunction in respect of prior publication of the Stephen Lawrence report.
In July 1997, I announced to the House that I was establishing a full judicial inquiry under Police Act powers into matters relating to the death of Stephen Lawrence. It was the first such inquiry since Lord Scarman's inquiry into the Brixton riots in 1981. I also announced that the former High Court judge, Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, was to chair this inquiry.
The House knows that the inquiry has raised matters of profound importance not only to the Lawrence family but to society as a whole. The report was delivered to me last Monday. Given the intense public and media interest in the inquiry's report, I took active steps to ensure the security of the report while it was being printed, and to ensure that it was first published to Parliament and to no one else. I believed that that was essential to avoid any distress to the Lawrence family or unfairness to police officers named in the report, and out of respect for the House and its procedures. Madam Speaker, I think that you will confirm that I wrote to you last week seeking your agreement to the arrangements which I had put in hand.
At about 5.15 pm last Saturday evening, the Home Office duty press officer received a call from the BBC. The person claimed that The Sunday Telegraph had obtained a leaked copy of the report of the inquiry which it intended to publish in full, or to publish substantial parts of it. As soon as I was informed, at about 6.30 pm, I said that The Sunday Telegraph should be asked not to print a leaked copy of the report. The Sunday Telegraph was not, however, prepared to indicate exactly what material it had in its possession, nor to desist from publication.
The Treasury solicitors, briefed by Home Office lawyers, then also approached The Sunday Telegraph. The paper indicated that it was not in possession of a copy of the report itself, but that a journalist had had access to it. It informed us that its deadline for printing and publication was 8.30 pm.
I took the view that prior publication of parts of this report was not remotely in the public interest. I considered that it was likely to cause distress to the Lawrence family, and to place the police officers concerned in near impossible circumstances in which they would be expected to respond to partial claims of what the report contained without having access to the report itself. I have also always believed, as you do Madam Speaker, that such reports must first be published to Parliament. Moreover, these were wholly exceptional circumstances. This was not a policy White Paper, and the Government could not be embarrassed in any way by the contents of the report being revealed. Above all, this was a report of a full judicial inquiry. It would, I suggest to the House, be no more acceptable to have revealed a premature and incomplete account of the findings of such a full judicial inquiry than it would be for the judgment of a court of law to be disclosed in that way.
I remind the House that one of the other purposes of that important convention is to secure protection for those conducting such inquiries. Statute law provides absolute privilege for such documents as the inquiry report only when they are presented to Parliament. In all the circumstances, I therefore decided that every possible effort should be made to preserve the confidentiality of the report, including, if necessary, the seeking of an injunction.
By about 7.45 pm on Saturday, an approach had been made to the duty judge, Mr. Justice Rix, by the Treasury Solicitor. After legal representatives of The Sunday Telegraph had been given an opportunity to make representations to the judge, the judge decided to issue an injunction at about 8.35 pm. The terms of the injunction were to prevent the publication of any part of, or extract from, the report, or the publication of any article based on the report or part of it, or extracts from the report.
It later became clear, however, that The Sunday Telegraph had in fact printed and distributed large numbers of copies of the paper earlier in the evening. In practice, therefore, the contents of The Sunday Telegraph report came into the public domain, notwithstanding the terms of the injunction that had been obtained.
At about midday yesterday, Sunday, The Sunday Telegraph approached the Treasury Solicitor to give notice that it would take the injunction back to the judge. The Sunday Telegraph made it clear to the Home Office that it accepted that it—The Sunday Telegraph—should continue to be restrained by injunction from publishing any part of the inquiry report that had not found its way into the public domain. It also proposed that the order should not apply to those parts that were in any event already public. By that stage, that was the only practical course available.
I greatly regret that our injunction came too late to maintain the confidentiality of the full report until it was published to Parliament, but the injunction remains in force until Wednesday in respect of those parts that have not found their way into the public domain.
The House will wish to know that the solicitors acting for the Lawrence family confirmed to my office today that Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence fully appreciate and understand my concern for their feelings about publication of the leaked extracts. As the family have known for some time, it was always my intention to ensure that they would—subject to your agreement, Madam Speaker—have an opportunity to see the report before it entered the public domain, and shortly before publication to Parliament. In view of what has appeared in the press, I have made it clear to them that they may see the report as soon as they wish to do so. Arrangements have therefore been made for them to receive it today. I have also—with your agreement, Madam Speaker—made arrangements for the Commissioner of Police to see the report.
The job that we ask our police service to do on our behalf is difficult at the best of times. We saw one illustration of that only last week in the policing of the demonstration outside the Greek embassy, and the skilful ending by the police of the occupation of the building. As a result of the premature publication of parts of the Stephen Lawrence report, the police service and the Commissioner have now been subjected to a wholly unfair process of speculation to which they could not and cannot properly respond. The fact that prejudicial


comments have been made against the Commissioner before he has even had a chance to see the report is one of many reasons why it was right to seek to stop this from happening.
I condemn the breach of trust that was involved in making the material involved available to The Sunday Telegraph in this way, and Sir William Macpherson shares that view. The permanent secretary at the Home Office will be inquiring into the matter. The claims that the freedom of the press has been challenged by the injunction are absurd. The whole report will be published in full to Parliament on Wednesday, as planned; but it was and remains plainly contrary to the public interest for there to be selective and premature disclosure of a judicial inquiry.

Sir Norman Fowler: I do not accept what the Home Secretary has said. Is not the real position that the Home Secretary embarked on an entirely unjustified and autocratic action and has now been forced into a humiliating climbdown? Will he confirm that no issue of national security was raised at all and that The Sunday Telegraph was carrying out its legitimate and proper role as a newspaper—to report and to reveal?
In that respect, let me declare an interest. I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists for the past 35 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I know that it is unfashionable among Labour Members, but that is what I have been. I am also non-executive chairman of a regional newspaper company. In my experience, both political and journalistic, I have never seen the sort of action that was attempted by the Home Secretary. The injunction was to prevent publication of some extracts of a report that was to be published in a few days in any event. That may be irritating for the Government, but such reports have happened time and again, Government after Government, without Ministers resorting to injunctions. It is ludicrous to think that the Home Secretary can quell speculation about what will be in the report.
On the interests of the Lawrence family, I, like all hon. Members, have the strongest sympathy for the family, but there was nothing in The Sunday Telegraph report that damaged their interests, and there was certainly nothing to justify the heavyhanded action by the Home Secretary.
Even less will the House be persuaded that the Government were trying to protect Parliament. It is an explanation that defies belief. It is the Government who are the chief leakers of their own announcements. Time and again, the Government have leaked their announcements in advance.
Is the Home Secretary aware that next to no one believes that the so-called spin doctors who are employed by the Government are there to defend parliamentary democracy? They do not think twice about leaking if it is to their advantage. The Government have devalued Parliament; they have not protected it.
I remind the Home Secretary that he made a statement only last Monday on severely disturbed people in the community. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) complained at the time, the details of that statement were all in the weekend's press. The pitch had been rolled in advance, and rolled by the Home Secretary's Department.
On the source of the story, is the Home Secretary convinced that it did not come from any Minister or any official in his Department? Will he now say who had access to the report? Is it possible that the paragraphs were provided deliberately to convey a message that was antagonistic to the interests of those who were being reported—the police?
In his statement last night, the Home Secretary said that the so-called principle of what he had done remained unchallenged. Let him therefore be specific. Is he saying that his action was not only justified, but that the Government would consider doing the same with other newspaper reports? Is he saying that, in similar circumstances, the injunction would be used again? Is that the Home Secretary's concept of freedom of the press?
No issue of national security was at stake. What the Home Secretary should do is apologise to the House and the public for his action, and give an assurance that neither he nor any other Minister will repeat that action. As it stands, his action in pressing for an injunction will go down as a massive error of judgment on his part and on the part of the Government. It is a shabby episode that shows the Government at their worst.

Mr. Straw: If apologies are due, they are due from the shadow Home Secretary for speaking to the House as chairman of a newspaper company, not as a Member of Parliament.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker: Order. I was being distracted. Will the Home Secretary repeat what he said, so that I know whether it should be withdrawn? I am very concerned about it, but I do not know what he said.

Mr. Straw: I said that, if apologies were due, they were due from the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for speaking to the House—as indeed he himself declared—as a non-executive chairman of a newspaper company, rather than as a Member of the House.

Hon. Members: Disgraceful!

Madam Speaker: Order—all of you. It is time tempers on both sides of the House cooled down. I hope that the Secretary of State will apologise and rephrase what he has to say. We should get on with our business now.

Mr. Straw: I withdraw the remark and apologise to the shadow Home Secretary.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield suggested that it was a very unusual course of action to take. He was right about that—it was indeed a very unusual course of action to take. It was an unusual course to take because it deals with the very unusual circumstances of the report of a judicial inquiry.
The right hon. Gentleman asked when the most recent occasion on which such a report had been considered by the House was. The most recent occasion I can recall on


which such an inquiry report was made available to the House, under the terms of the Police Act, was Lord Scarman's report into the Brixton riots, in 1981.
As I made clear repeatedly over the weekend, there was no suggestion that the Government, outside the sphere of national security, should use the injunctive powers available to them when they are seeking to avoid embarrassment to themselves as a Government or to prevent prior disclosure of a document, such as a White Paper or other policy document. Such use in those circumstances plainly would be disproportionate.
However, my judgment—which I believe is also the judgment of the whole House—was that it was entirely appropriate to seek that injunction: to protect the interests of the Lawrence family, of the police service and, above all, of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me questions about the inquiry that my permanent secretary will be undertaking and about who will have access to that report. The answer is that the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until that inquiry is made public.
I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that I was very surprised indeed by the tone of his remarks. I am astonished that he should not recognise that there is a profound difference between a run-of-the-mill Government publication and the report of a judicial inquiry; and that, in these circumstances, it was entirely appropriate for me to seek that injunction, which stands.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As a member of the National Union of Journalists—which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is—and as a former shadow Home Secretary—which the right hon. Gentleman soon will be—may I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that we are witnessing an instructive example of two legitimate positions in a democracy: a newspaper that has got hold of a document of public interest, which it has decided it wishes to publish; and a Home Secretary who wishes to protect the date of publication of a report of which he is custodian? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position of the Conservatives is not legitimate? They pursued Sarah Tisdall into gaol for a minor leak. They tried to put Clive Ponting into gaol. They pursued the "Spycatcher" issue to Australia in an effort, not to postpone publication but to suppress the book, resulting in the invention of the phrase "economical with the truth"—a phrase that applies to the Tory party.

Mr. Straw: Yes. The Conservatives are the last people from whom we should take lectures, given their record.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I wholly agree with the Home Secretary that the public interest in freedom of expression is not well served by advance headlining of selective findings from a judicial inquiry to be published in its entirety within a few days. We should recognise that the press has spotlit the Lawrence case in the past and sustained public concern, but I hope that the premature pickings will in no way blunt the edge of the full Macpherson report when it is published.
The culture that we are living in stems from the previous Conservative Government, of which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was a

member. We well remember the efforts that were made to manipulate the Scott inquiry. Does the Home Secretary accept that relentless Government spin and off-the-record briefings have made the publication of such judicial inquiries a matter of great difficulty, and that it might be better to require the findings of such an inquiry to be handled in the same way as the judgments of a court, leaving publication to the judge?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and his support for my position. I entirely accept that reports of such judicial inquiries must be handled carefully. In my opening remarks I drew a parallel between such a report and the judgment of a court of law. Given that I established the inquiry, it could be published only to Parliament. I had laid careful plans to ensure that there was no briefing before the publication of the report and that it was made available to Parliament alone first.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us believe that the principle of reporting to Parliament is so fundamental that we deprecate any attempt by anyone to get round the rules just to protect a paper's circulation? It should be generally understood that the principle of free speech commands the support of the public, but it also gives everyone the responsibility of playing according to the rules. Those who cheat do nothing to support the idea of a responsible and sensible press.

Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's view. It is essential that all Members of Parliament show respect for this House above all and ensure that all important statements, including the reports of inquiries, are made available to the House first.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Home Secretary not understand that his behaviour over the weekend and his statement to the House have been greeted with such a lack of respect because he is a senior member of a Government who have institutionalised leaking? Given the complaints that have been made here and elsewhere over the past 20 months, to try to tell the House that the Government believe in the primacy of Parliament brings the right hon. Gentleman into contempt. Will he ask his permanent secretary and Sir Richard Wilson to place in the Library of the House a list of all conversations involving Ministers, special advisers and members of press offices—in the Cabinet Office, No. 10 and the Home Office—over the past four days that relate to the issue in any way? That may allow us better to test some of the Home Secretary's statements.

Mr. Straw: I reject the right hon. Gentleman's central allegation. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to the statement on severe personality disorders that I made in the House last Monday and, to pick up on that point, it is simply untrue and incorrect—as I made clear yesterday—that there was any prior briefing of newspapers by my Department or by special advisers. I make that absolutely clear.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) asked me to place in the Library certain records relating to contacts between members of the Government and journalists regarding the


report. I have discussed the contents of the Lawrence inquiry report with no journalist at any time. The other matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred will be dealt with by the inquiry by my permanent secretary and the Home Office.

Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there would have been a different row today had he not taken action regarding the court case, with Opposition Members demanding to know why there had been no statement from him on the Lawrence affair in view of the leak in the press? In all the years since Stephen Lawrence was put to death—during which no one has been convicted of that racist murder—I have never seen the sort of fury that we have had from the Tories today. They are furious about the court injunction—they have never seemed furious about the lack of justice in terms of bringing racist thugs to court.

Mr. Straw: There has been widespread concern about the circumstances of the death of Stephen Lawrence, which I hope is widely shared across the House. My hon. Friend is entirely right that had I not sought the injunction in those particular circumstances, there would have been exactly the opposite complaint from the Opposition, who would have complained that I had not sought an injunction to preserve the integrity of Parliament.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The words of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will be on the record, and will be judged by those who care to look back. The Home Secretary was right to set up the inquiry, and much good will come from the bad things that have been reported to it. Many will look with interest at the inquiry's conclusions and recommendations. Today's statement was not about that—it was about the injunction.
Who is the Minister responsible for the freedoms—not the controls—of the press? If it is not the Home Secretary, was that Minister consulted before the injunction was applied for? Most importantly, given that the presses have been stopped once because of Government action, could there be consultation between the Lord Chancellor, Alastair Campbell and the Prime Minister so that a cast-iron guarantee can be given that the Government never again will do what they did on Saturday night?

Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for policy relating to the press. I did not consult him on Saturday. This was a decision that I made, and for which I am personally responsible. The hon. Gentleman asked for an undertaking that we never again seek an injunction in circumstances such as those which faced me on Saturday night. I am afraid that I cannot give him that undertaking. I do not believe that circumstances will often arise—they have not done so often in the past—where what a Secretary of State is seeking to protect is not a policy White Paper or a document for which it would be self-serving to seek to obtain an injunction because the document was an embarrassment to the Government: something that the Tory Government often did.
This document was not remotely embarrassing to the Government, and contained the contents of a judicial inquiry. I remain astonished that not a single Tory

Member seems to believe that a report of a full judicial inquiry should have been made public in full to Parliament first, and that it was right for me to seek to protect the position of Parliament.

Ms Diane Abbott: Does my right hon. Friend accept that whoever leaked the findings of the Macpherson report to The Sunday Telegraph did not have at heart the best interests of the Lawrence family and natural justice? The Lawrences have had to listen to Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all commenting on partial disclosure of a report that they have not seen. They must be concerned that the impact of an important and serious report has been blunted by that disclosure.
As for the synthetic indignation of Tory spokesmen, Londoners and Britain's black and Asian community will judge the way in which they have made such a song and dance of what is essentially a side issue, when it is clear that they will fall curiously silent when it comes to a serious debate about the serious issues concerning institutional racism with which the Macpherson report deals.

Mr. Straw: I endorse what my hon. Friend says. I find it extraordinary, given the huge distress that the Lawrence family have suffered in the nearly six years since their son was murdered, that Conservative Members seem to brush aside the concern that was uppermost in my mind when I sought the injunction, which was to prevent the family from suffering further distress in the three days leading up to the publication of the inquiry's report. Far from suppressing publication of the report, I was seeking to ensure that it was published in full, but in an orderly manner, to the House and to the public.

Mr. Roger Gale: I happen to believe that the right to a fair hearing extends not only to the family of Stephen Lawrence but to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I agree that the report should have been made available to Parliament first. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said, the Government have institutionalised leaks: material is released before it is announced to Parliament, on the "Today" programme on Radio 4, virtually every morning of any week.
The Home Secretary said that the report was different from what he described as the ordinary, run-of-the-mill Government document. I hope, Madam Speaker, that you would agree that he should give the House an assurance that, from now on, every Government document of any kind will be made available to Parliament before it is made available to the press.

Mr. Straw: Of course there is a distinction between an ordinary White Paper, for which it would be entirely disproportionate, even if it were leaked, for Ministers to seek an injunction to prevent its prior publication, and a report of the result of a full judicial inquiry. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman fails to note that distinction. He is entirely right that not only the Lawrence family but the Commissioner are entitled to a fair hearing and the respect of Parliament. I believe that he has been placed in a nigh impossible position as a result of the prior publication of the report.

Mr. Clive Soley: Am I right in thinking that, had the report been published


in full on Wednesday, as planned, the people and organisations involved would have been able to read it and be ready to respond to questions from the media? That right has been taken away from them by the leak. Are not freedom and responsibility of the press two sides of the same coin?

Mr. Straw: That is entirely right. We understand that, if the press get hold of such a document, they will consider it their duty to publish it, and I make no particular complaint about that; but we have other responsibilities. My anger is directed at the individual or individuals who may have leaked the report to the journalists, and I direct that anger on behalf of the Lawrence family, on behalf of the police, who have been placed in an extremely difficult position as a result of the prior publication, and—I say it with respect, Madam Speaker—on behalf of the House.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Home Secretary really think that it is defensible, when considering respect for Parliament, to make a distinction between what he describes as ordinary, run-of-the-mill statements, and reports of judicial inquiries under the Police Act? Are we really to expect the Government to come to Parliament first only once in every 18 years?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is deliberately misinterpreting what I said, and he knows it. Parliamentary documents should, of course, be made available first to Parliament: I seek to do that and have always done so. If that is his proposition, I agree with him. However, I disagree with the proposition that there is no distinction between a White Paper and the report of a full judicial inquiry. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point. I repeat that it would be disproportionate and out of the question for Ministers to seek to use injunctive powers to prevent the prior publication of a White Paper, and it would be unlikely that any judge would grant such an application. The judge must consider whether publication is contrary to the public interest and, in this case, it was the judge—not me—who made that judgment, given all the circumstances surrounding the publication of this report by a judicial inquiry.

Mr. Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend was right to act in the way he did at the weekend, and he was right to want to come to Parliament first. I thank him for allowing the Lawrence family to see the report today, which was the correct and compassionate thing to do. Does he share my disgust at the attitude of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in seeking to play politics with the issues of race and racism, when he and the Conservative party did nothing to deal with those issues when they were in government?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the action that I took. I would take such action again, if faced with similar circumstances. However, I do not share my hon. Friend's view of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, because his record in Parliament is one of opposition to racism. It remains the fact that it was left to me to set up the inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Stephen Lawrence, because the request was

refused by my predecessor. However, that was not the responsibility of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Whether the Home Secretary likes it or not, I fear that he has been guilty of political ineptitude this weekend. Does he agree that he made a false point in defending his application for the injunction? He said that one of the reasons he applied for it was to protect Sir William Macpherson of Cluny because he might be liable for any unauthorised publication. However, that retired judge would not be liable for any unauthorised publication of the report because he was not responsible for the leaking of the document. The leaking of the document emanated from the Government.

Mr. Straw: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a false assumption at the end of his question.

Mr. Martin Linton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that no journalist can seriously maintain that any issue of freedom of the press was involved in enjoining newspapers not to publish the contents of the report until Wednesday—despite the false indignation of many leader writers—because newspapers are happy to withhold the entire contents of Government reports for two or three days when offered to them under embargo? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only issue involved here is that of courtesy—to the Lawrence family, to the Metropolitan police Commissioner and to the House?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend speaks from great experience as a journalist—

Sir Norman Fowler: Ex-journalist.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman says ex-journalist, but I do not think that he is correct. Many of the complaints in the press today are both predictable and synthetic, because my actions were not remotely an attack on the freedom of the press, given that the report will be published in full on Wednesday. That point was made eloquently by Mr. Roy Greenslade, the former editor of The Mirror, in The Guardian today.

Mr. Alan Clark: The House would have listened to the Home Secretary with more sympathy if his statement had not come against a background of two and a half years of consistent, widespread, tendentious and selective briefing by almost every Department in Whitehall. Is he serious about trying to trace this leak? He has not answered the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), including how many copies of the document there were, to whom they were circulated and whether they were numbered.

Mr. Straw: To answer the right hon. Gentleman's point, I can tell him that we are very serious about tracing the leak, and that is why an inquiry by the permanent secretary at the Home Office has been established.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The House has heard on two occasions allegations about institutionalised


leaking by the Government. The last time that a judicial inquiry was held—the full judicial review by Lady Butler-Sloss of the Cleveland child abuse crisis—was under the previous Government, when the then Department of Health and Social Security leaked the entire summary of conclusions to the Press Association. Will my right hon. Friend confirm again that Parliament must assert its rights in the interests of the people to whom we are accountable, who include the Lawrence family and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis?
Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the injunction was not lifted, but that it was merely varied, on the grounds that the information published in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Telegraph was already in the public domain? Is not that judgment in accordance with a decision by the European Court of Human Rights?

Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of showing proper respect to Parliament, and his implication that the last people able to lecture us about that are members of the previous Government.
With regard to the injunction, anyone reading this morning's newspapers would think that it had been lifted. In fact, The Sunday Telegraph consented—indeed, it proposed—that the injunction should remain in force in respect of that part of the report that was not yet in the public domain. The injunction was lifted only in respect of that part of the report that had entered the public domain, even though the injunction had been granted on Saturday night.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Home Secretary agree that his protestations on behalf of Parliament, welcome as they are, would ring a lot truer had he not been a member of an Opposition who sought every opportunity to exploit leaked documents—given to them by civil servants and others—to discredit the previous Government?
The Home Secretary did not answer the question about the number of documents that were in circulation posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). He owes it to the House to give those figures. Were the documents numbered? Were any civil servants—in the Home Office or in other Whitehall Departments—authorised to give selective briefings to journalists? Were any briefings given, authorised or otherwise?

Mr. Straw: I am not disclosing the security arrangements that we made in respect of the document, precisely because an inquiry into how the leak happened has been established and because any such disclosure would be prejudicial to that inquiry, for reasons that ought to be obvious to the hon. Gentleman.
Will the hon. Gentleman remind me of his other question?

Mr. Howarth: I asked whether any of the Home Secretary's officials were authorised to give briefings of any description.

Mr. Straw: The answer is no.

Mr. John Austin: Does my right hon. Friend share my regret that those who leaked

part of the report—and Conservative Members, judging by their subsequent actions—appear to show no concern for the feelings of the Lawrence family? Does he also share my unease that the vitriolic attacks made on him over the weekend, particularly by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), seemed to divert attention from the substance of that very important report?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having the courage to take the very difficult decision to set up the judicial inquiry. The hon. Member for Worthing, West used to represent Eltham, and immediately after the last general election, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) approached his predecessor to ask him to put his name to an all-party early-day motion calling for an inquiry into the circumstances of Stephen Lawrence's death. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Worthing, West declined, and would my right hon. Friend care to comment?

Mr. Straw: It is not for me to offer an explanation of the view taken by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who must explain himself. However, I have to say that, in my experience, the hon. Gentleman has shown considerable support for the Lawrence family.
I am grateful for the support expressed by my hon. Friend for my establishment of the inquiry, and for the fact that I have sought to protect the family, the police and the House from the premature publication of the report.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Home Secretary accept that there is nothing synthetic about the charge that the handling of a very important document has been unfortunate and unhappy? In relation to the rumours currently circulating about briefing against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis—of which, I am sure, he knows nothing, and which I am sure he would not want—can the Home Secretary assure the House that there is no such briefing?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that an unfortunate and unhappy set of events led to the leaking of part of the report. The whole House—whatever view Members may take of the injunction—will wholly condemn that leak.
Let me make it absolutely clear that I have no truck whatever with any briefing against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Indeed, my view is quite the reverse. I have today recorded my acknowledgement of the fine work done by the Commissioner and the Metropolitan police over many years. There are many examples, of which the best is the most recent—namely, the expertise and skill employed in policing the occupation of the Greek embassy, which ensured a peaceful end in circumstances that might have turned out otherwise.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to protect the interests of Back-Bench Members who often do not get to hear things first? I also congratulate him on the sensitivity with which he considered the interests of the Lawrence family, which are more important than even our interests.
Will my right hon. Friend comment on two allegations made on "Today" this morning? First, The Sunday Telegraph alleged that the Lawrence family had agreed to publication, or was not opposed to it. Secondly, and more importantly, the Police Federation spokesman claimed that the Home Office had been leaking for 10 weeks, which appears unlikely given the timetable under which the report reached the Home Secretary's attention.

Mr. Straw: On suggestions that the Lawrence family have not been opposed to publication, I cannot offer any insight into conversations that may or may not have taken place between The Sunday Telegraph and the representatives—or alleged representatives—of the family. However, as I have said to the House, solicitors acting for the family have made clear their understanding of the course of action that I took on the family's behalf. The suggestion that the Home Office had been leaking the report for 10 weeks—or even for 10 minutes—is wholly untrue.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not it true that the real harm done to the Lawrence family occurred when Stephen was killed and when the investigation was botched? How can the Home Secretary think that the leaking of the report a couple of days early will have terrible effects on the Lawrence family after all else that they have been through? Is he aware of a report in today's Evening Standard, not—so far—injuncted? It states:
Such leaks come week in and week out, many of them from members of the Cabinet.
The report also notes
well-sourced suspicions that the culprit is a junior Home Office Minister.
If the culprit is a junior Minister, and if one Labour Minister has had to seek an injunction as a result of the actions of another, will that junior Minister be sacked if he is found out?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman asked about distress caused to the Lawrence family, suggesting that any distress subsequent to the murder itself pales into

insignificance. I do not accept that view. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has spoken eloquently for both the Lawrence family and for a great many people—especially among the black community—on the profound sense of hurt felt about both the murder and all that has followed since.

Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend share my sadness at the reaction of our press? Does he believe that the currency of the freedom of the press, which the House unanimously believes is important, has been devalued by today's press? The newspapers appear to be interested in protecting not the interests of the British public, but their own circulation and pecuniary interests. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of us are extremely angry that, right at the end of a series of injustices, there has been yet another injustice whereby someone, for some reason unknown to us, has leaked the results of the inquiry in an unfair and unreasonable manner? Will he ensure that appropriate and firm punishment is meted out to anyone who is found to have leaked the document?

Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's views. As for the outcome of any leak inquiry, we must wait to see what conclusion it comes to.

Mr. Richard Allan: My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has already expressed our view that the public interest and the fight against racism are better served by full, rather than partial, publication of the report. Will the Home Secretary clarify the expected timetable for the full publication on Wednesday; and, in particular, tell the House whether any public line will be expressed by the Government before the hour at which he comes to the House to make his statement?

Mr. Straw: As you know, Madam Speaker, the current arrangements are that I should make the report available at 3.30 pm on Wednesday, with copies available in the Vote Office, and make an oral statement to the House. That will be the first public statement that I shall make.

Points of Order

Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You heard the Home Secretary say that he believed that there was a fundamental difference between Government White Papers and other documents. Will you rule from the Chair, so that the House and Ministers are absolutely clear, that all Government papers should be made available to Members of Parliament before being given to the press?

Madam Speaker: The House and all Ministers are well aware of my strong views on that matter. All Government documents and all documents handled by the Government should be made available to the House before going into public circulation.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were recently kind enough to allow me to raise a point of order on an issue of great concern to my constituents—the future of the buildings of the staff college in Camberley. As you know, I tabled a question on the subject which was, unfortunately, not reached during Defence questions this afternoon. You will be concerned to learn of the information that has subsequently reached me: that, during the few days before the local press, quoting extensively an MOD spokeswoman, reported on the proposal to convert the staff college into luxury flats, there was a briefing by MOD employees of senior local government officers; and that, during that briefing, an MOD official spoke to officers of the local council and indicated that among those who must not, in any circumstances, be told of the proposal were elected councillors of Surrey Heath council and the local Member of Parliament. Have you received any indication from MOD Ministers about whether they propose to make any further statements about the matter? Will you express your concern that, once again—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's previous point of order on the subject and I regret that his very direct question was not reached this afternoon—to be frank, I had hoped that we would make better progress on Defence questions. It is not for me to

comment on the issue he raises; it is a matter for exchange of views across the Floor of the House. May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman apply for an Adjournment debate, in which he will be able to debate the issue fully, rather than confine himself to tabling parliamentary questions?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recollect that, back in 1986, when American bombers left this country to raid Tripoli and Benghazi, there were many eloquent points of order raised by then Opposition Front Benchers about the precise nature of the arrangement between Her Majesty's Government at that time and the American Administration. Have you received any requests for a statement, or for a question to be answered, in respect of the exact terms of reference of the B52s that apparently might operate from British soil? Given that those huge bombers wreak absolute devastation wherever they go, is not the whole relationship between ourselves and the Americans on the matter of prime importance?

Madam Speaker: I am afraid that my memory does not extend to that particular situation in 1986. However, Question 2 on the Order Paper referred to the deployment of personnel in south-east Europe, and I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State for Defence, who widened the scope of the question. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was fortunate enough to catch my eye on that question and he put his point to the Secretary of State. I have not heard from the Government that Ministers are seeking to make a statement on that issue at this time.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance in light of inquiries that have already been made. In view of the importance that you attach to statements being made to the House before their contents are conveyed to the public, do you agree that it is of the utmost importance that the outcome of the leak investigation, which the Home Secretary announced this afternoon, should be reported first to Parliament before it is revealed to the public? Pursuant to that point, Madam Speaker, have you had any indication that that is the intention of Ministers?

Madam Speaker: I have had no indication of that sort and it is for the Home Secretary to determine the matter.

Orders of the Day — Immigration and Asylum Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have had to limit Back-Bench speeches to 15 minutes.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill represents the most fundamental reform of immigration and asylum law for decades. The size of the Bill—nearly 140 clauses with 14 schedules—and the range of its provisions reflect the Government's commitment to delivering the comprehensive and integrated strategy set out in our White Paper last July. Within a modern framework of law, the aim—to quote the title of the White Paper—is to make the system fairer, faster and firmer. We want a fairer system that reflects our commitment to race equality and human rights; we want a faster system that is able to deal quickly with all applicants, whether visiting this country or seeking to remain here longer; and we want a firmer system, with strong controls at ports and effective enforcement against those not entitled to stay. This Bill is vital in helping to deliver those objectives.
The Bill is also essential in helping to deal with the increasing number of asylum seekers. We are not alone in facing such pressures: other European countries have faced similar increases. Indeed, when relative population is taken into account, 10 other European countries receive more applicants than we do. We will continue to protect genuine refugees, but we will deal firmly with those who seek to exploit the system.
Part 1 contains important provisions to make the operation of immigration controls more flexible and effective. For example, the Bill will enable a visa itself to confer leave to enter so as to streamline procedures at ports. The Secretary of State, as well as immigration officers, will be able to grant or refuse leave to enter and so minimise duplication of effort in handling certain types of casework. The current power to charge for settlement applications is widened to other after-entry applications and the powers of the immigration service to require passenger information are strengthened to enable better targeting of resources and improved inter-agency co-operation. However, those provisions will not change the fundamental basis on which our immigration control operates. All arriving passengers will continue to be seen by immigration staff and may be refused entry if they do not qualify.
Enforcement must be backed by the criminal law, so this part of the Bill extends the scope of the existing offences of obtaining leave to enter or remain by deception and increases the maximum term of imprisonment from six months to two years. However, as the House knows, the Government are as committed to stamping out racial discrimination as we are to ensuring a firm immigration control. Clause 13 re-emphasizes to employers their duty to avoid racial discrimination in their

recruitment practices when seeking to secure the statutory defence under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. It places on me a statutory duty to issue a code of practice aimed at ensuring that employers do not breach the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976.
In recent years, extensive efforts have been made to reduce the opportunity for illegal immigration for those coming in by air, train or ferry. The previous Government introduced the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. I extended its application to Eurostar trains from Belgium, and the French authorities have considerably tightened their embarkation controls on passengers leaving the Gare du Nord in Paris for the United Kingdom. I have introduced visa regimes for Ecuador, Colombia and Slovakia, and direct airside transit visas for other countries. As these controls have worked, not perfectly but effectively, traffickers in illegal migrants have sought other routes.
Hon. Members will be well aware that over recent months many clandestine entrants have emerged from the backs of lorries and other vehicles, some at seaports and some on the verges of motorways, many miles from a port. About 8,000 clandestine entrants were detected in 1998 compared with fewer than 500 in 1992. Illegal immigration on this scale represents a serious threat to the integrity of the control and costs the taxpayer many millions of pounds. It is unfair to those who enter lawfully and we are determined to tackle it.
Part II provides for a new civil penalty to apply for each clandestine entrant brought to the United Kingdom concealed in any vehicle, ship or aircraft. There will be joint liability between the owner, hirer and driver of a vehicle, but only one penalty—probably of £2,000—will he charged for each entrant. The Bill includes a power to impound and, if necessary, to sell, a vehicle or small ship or aircraft if there is a significant risk that the penalty will not otherwise be paid.
The new penalty is a key part of a wider strategy, including strengthening international co-operation, to tackle illegal immigration; but the Government are in no doubt that the responsibility for what vehicles carry into the United Kingdom must ultimately rest with the owner, the hirer and the driver. The Bill provides for certain defences for those who can demonstrate—the onus is on them—that they have an effective system in place which has been properly operated. There is also a power for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice setting out the procedures that should be followed by road hauliers and others who operate a system to prevent clandestine entrants from using their vehicles. We will continue to discuss the detailed operation of the new regime with the industry and unions.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I represent Portsmouth which, being a seaport, is plagued with this problem. Some drivers are seeking assistance from the Home Office to put facilities in place at continental ports to enable vehicles to be properly checked, so that they can then return to the UK without clandestine immigrants. Is the Home Secretary considering ways to support such proposals financially?

Mr. Straw: We are certainly looking at ways to assist drivers. I cannot promise financial support, but we are seeking to assist the road haulage industry to secure


improvements in the checking carried out on the other side of the channel. Indeed, that has already happened at, I understand, Zeebrugge. Next month, I shall almost certainly go to see Jean-Pierre Chevènement, the French Minister of the Interior, to see whether controls and checks can be strengthened in the Pas de Calais, where many of the problems arise. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I, too, have had representations from road hauliers who are particularly concerned that if they carry out the inspections proposed in the Bill and declare in France that they have someone on board who should not be there, their vehicles could be impounded and they themselves could have to answer to the local magistrate, thus delaying their journey by 24 hours. There is therefore an incentive for them not to declare, while they are in France, that they have picked someone up. Will my right hon. Friend take that on board when he discusses the matter with his colleagues in France?

Mr. Straw: We want to secure effective arrangements in co-operation with the road haulage industry, so I accept the need for those discussions to take place. I do not accept my hon. Friend's assumption that there is any incentive for a driver or road haulier who knows, while he is on the other side of the channel, that there is an illegal migrant in the back of his lorry, then to bring that person into this country. If people act in that irresponsible way, the penalty will be imposed on them. On the other hand, if they follow the procedures, exercise reasonable care and follow the code of practice, and it then turns out that they have an illegal migrant on board, they will have a defence against the charge.
Clauses 25 to 27 replace, with amendments, the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, which is to be repealed. Carriers' liability legislation is an important tool in reducing the number of people arriving in the United Kingdom without the proper documentation. The Bill strengthens the existing law in a number of ways. In particular, part II extends carriers' liability to buses and coaches. That will plug an important loophole and create a level playing field with other carriers. It also provides a power to detain, and if necessary to sell, a vehicle, ship or aircraft in order to secure payment of carriers' liability charges.
I come now to the provisions of the Bill that deal with the arrangements for immigration detainees. I make no apology for the use of detention. It is necessary in a small number of cases, but there must be proper safeguards. Part III fulfils the commitment in the White Paper to introduce a more extensive judicial element in the detention process. That will be achieved by introducing routine bail hearings for those detained under immigration legislation.
At present, there is little in statute that governs the operation and management of immigration detention centres. That is accepted in all parts of the House as unsatisfactory. Part VIII provides a proper statutory framework for all aspects of the management and administration of detention centres and for the escort of detainees. Those provisions, together with those for routine bail hearings, will provide additional safeguards

for detainees, improve the management of detention centres and establish clearly the powers of detainee custody officers.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: With regard to bail, can my right hon. Friend clarify what the presumptions will be? Will the presumption of the Bail Act 1976 apply, so that it will be presumed that bail will be granted unless there is good reason not to grant it? Furthermore, will it be possible in a judicial hearing to raise the question not only whether someone should be released, but whether that person should legally have been detained in the first place?

Mr. Straw: It will not be possible in the bail proceedings to raise the issue of the lawfulness or otherwise of the detention. That is a matter that must be dealt with under process for habeas corpus. We do not intend to change that, for good reasons.
I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. Friend comfort on his first point, either. Because of the special circumstances of immigration detention, which is used in only a relatively small number of cases and as a last resort, I did not judge it appropriate that there should be the same assumptions about the availability of bail as there are in the Bail Act 1976. However, what we are doing is consistent with the discussions that my hon. Friend and I and many other colleagues had in opposition. We are laying down, for the first time, that all detainees will have a right to apply for bail.

Mr. John Bercow: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the asylum to be granted to people who applied for asylum in this country before the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into force will not extend to those who have since committed a serious criminal offence in this country? That is not a matter to which the Bill addresses itself.

Mr. Straw: Yes. For practical reasons, the emphasis must be on the word "serious". Where such people have committed serious criminal offences, we do not intend to make the arrangements for dealing with that backlog in the manner otherwise described in the White Paper.
Part IV deals with immigration and asylum appeals. Reform of the appeals system is fundamental to the Government's long-term strategy for a fair, fast and firm immigration and asylum system. The current system is complex, and the existing multiple rights of appeal delay the final resolution of cases. They enable those who have no legitimate basis to remain in the United Kingdom to manipulate the system and prolong their stay here. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had long experience of the way in which people with no basis to remain in this country have been able to string out their stay, sometimes for years, by multiple and successive appeals.
The existing structure of successive rights of appeal will therefore be replaced by a one-stop comprehensive appeal that will cover all appealable aspects of a case at one go. When an application is refused, the applicant will be invited to set out all the grounds on which he wishes to remain in the United Kingdom, including asylum, the European convention on human rights or compassionate grounds.
The subsequent appeal will then consider all the factors in the case on which an appeal may be brought. Unless a ground for staying in the United Kingdom has been set out at this stage, it cannot form the basis for an appeal by the applicant unless he had reasonable excuse for not mentioning it when invited to do so; or, in asylum and ECHR cases, provided the claim is not being made to frustrate removal.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome a much more streamlined appeal system but I ask the Home Secretary whether he can do something else to reduce the pressure on the system, namely, to allow those who are applying to come to this country as visitors or students, and who have no previous record or family record of ever having breached any rules, to come here on the presumption that they will behave themselves, rather than the presumption that they will not. I have many constituents who are absolutely law abiding who have families wishing to come to this country for weddings, funerals or to study. They are applying to come here and being turned down. They are then applying again, being turned down and appealing. The system is clogged up hugely by them when there is no reason why they should be treated so badly by our people at their points of application.

Mr. Straw: They are very lucky if they are family visitors and they appeal, because the right of appeal was abolished by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Our complaint, which I shall come to, has been the absence of a right of appeal for family visitors, and that we intend to put right.
In future, in-country rights of appeal will be restricted to persons who are lawfully present at the time when they apply for further permission to remain and where an adverse decision would be required for their departure. Those here unlawfully, such as overstayers, will be subject to removal under clause 6 of part I rather than deportation, just as illegal entrants are now. However, in accordance with our international obligations, applicants claiming asylum or ECHR rights will have a right of appeal, even if they are not lawfully present when they make their claim. Someone who is refused asylum, but granted limited leave, will have a right of appeal against his asylum refusal.
We also think that modernisation of the immigration appellate authorities is needed. We want the immigration adjudicators to be able to deal with cases quickly and fairly, and we want the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to continue to develop as the central authoritative guide to immigration and asylum law. I pay tribute to all that Judge Pearl, formerly the chief adjudicator and now the president of the tribunal, and Judge Dunn QC, his successor as chief adjudicator, and their colleagues have done to improve decision making and reduce waiting times.
At adjudicator level, waiting times are now down to about 16 weeks, from delays of more than a year, which we inherited in May 1997. There are still delays at tribunal level, which are not the fault of the tribunal itself. However, the Lord Chancellor is in the process of appointing new members and these delays should reduce sharply when the appointments are made.

Mr. Richard Allan: Will the Home Secretary give the logic behind the recently reported

decision to withdraw support from asylum seekers who take out judicial review of their appeal? Surely it would be better to continue to support an asylum seeker where a court has decided that he or she should have leave for judicial review. There must be merit in the case if the court made that decision.

Mr. Straw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me until I deal with support arrangements. If I do not satisfy him then, I shall take an intervention from him.
Part of the purpose of our streamlining the appeal system and making the appellate tribunal more authoritative is to reduce the grounds for judicial review, which I happen to think is very important. There has been—this view is held by immigration officers and, for example, by judges of the High Court who have to operate the Crown Office list—something of an abuse of the option of applying for judicial review, simply as another means of spinning out someone's stay when it is not otherwise justified.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that at an appeal, where the opportunity for one exists, there will be an opportunity to argue compassionate circumstances. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that in every appeal that is envisaged within the Government's proposals for people who are in the United Kingdom, the compassionate circumstances of their case as are currently set out in the immigration rules that relate to deportation appeals will be able to be considered?

Mr. Straw: I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot give the guarantee that she seeks. I understand her point, which we have discussed outside the House. I suggest that she has raised one of those important but detailed issues which should sensibly be pursued in the Special Standing Committee, if the House decides to establish it at the end of today's debate.
The Bill will give adjudicators clear and effective powers to deal summarily with appeals that are not being seriously pursued, so that they can concentrate on the cases of substance. The Bill will make the tribunal more of an effective and professionally expert appellate body. The reforms that the Government are proposing to the legal aid system should help to put an end to the waste of public money on poor legal advice to asylum seekers and to the pursuit of unmeritorious cases at public expense.

Ms Diane Abbott: The Home Secretary will find that I am a critic of some parts of the Bill, but I see hundreds of applications for judicial review every month and most of them—[Interruption.] Yes, I see hundreds every month. Most of the applications that I see are wholly spurious and I have begun to go back to some solicitors to ask them why they are giving such poor advice to my constituents.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that on the record—it is absolutely true. What she describes brings the law into disrepute, is a waste of public money and, above all, harms those of our constituents with genuine and justifiable cases for going for judicial review, but they are few and far between. As my hon. Friend will know, the Lord Chancellor is making extensive reforms to the legal aid system, better to ensure


that solicitors are not able unjustifiably to milk the system to make a bit of money for themselves and string out the prospect of their client remaining in this country.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: If my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress, I will then give way.
Overall, the aim of these measures is to meet the target set out in the White Paper of two months for an initial decision and four months thereafter for any appeal to have to be dealt with. Those are challenging targets. They depend not only on this legislation, but on the additional investment that we are making to speed up the system.
Much of what I have spoken about today is to do with tightening controls on illegal immigration and against the abuse of the asylum process, but immigration control must also act fairly in respect of all those lawfully resident in this country who, for example, wish to receive visits from family members abroad. One of the provisions of the 1993 Act for which I always thought that there was the least justification was the removal of any right of appeal for such visitors.
Those of us with Afro-Caribbean or south Asian constituents, for example, know at first hand of the strong sense of injustice that the abolition of the right of appeal has engendered among many of our constituents. That is no criticism whatever of the work of entry clearance officers at British posts abroad; it is a criticism of the principle that such decisions should not be subject to any further independent adjudication.
Part IV therefore fulfils our manifesto commitment to reinstate a right of appeal to those who are refused a visa for the purpose of a family visit. Provision may be made by regulations that those who wish to appeal will have to meet the costs of doing so, but fees would be refunded to those whose appeals were allowed.
A related issue is that of a bond scheme. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been asked, as I often have in my constituency surgeries, why their constituents cannot give some form of financial guarantee that a relative wishing to visit them will leave at the end of the visit. Part I therefore makes provision for a financial security, or bond, to be required or accepted where visitors apply for an entry clearance. The bond would be forfeit if the visitor did not leave the United Kingdom and we will run a pilot to test the merits of such a scheme before deciding on its wider use.
Part V fulfils a further manifesto—

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give way on the question of visitors' appeals?

Mr. Straw: Yes, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones).

Mr. Kaufman: I, on behalf of my constituents, appreciate very much the fulfilment of the manifesto commitment on this matter. From his constituency

experience, my right hon. Friend will know that, although some family visits have no fixed point and can take place at any time, specific visits relating to weddings and funerals have a fixed point. In view of the fact that an appeal would be pointless if it went beyond the date of a wedding or a funeral, will he consider the possibility of a fast-track system for appeals on those matters only?

Mr. Straw: The answer to my right hon. Friend is yes. That issue has caused great frustration, to my constituents as well as to his, and we will certainly look at it very carefully.

Dr. Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Bill will be referred to a Special Standing Committee, which is a welcome procedure. However, he is aware that much of the detail of the proposals is not in the Bill, but will be enshrined in regulations and statutory instruments. Will the Special Standing Committee have an opportunity to consider the drafts of the regulations as well as the Bill?

Mr. Straw: We are endeavouring to ensure that the Special Standing Committee has as much information as possible. I cannot promise that drafts of all the regulations will be made available at this relatively early stage in the process. However, I can promise that the process manual and the information manual relating to the support scheme will be made available to the Committee. We will get as much information to the Committee as we can.
Part V of the Bill deals with immigration advisers and immigration service providers, and fulfils a further manifesto commitment to regulate immigration advisers. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) who first exposed the scandalous behaviour of some of these people, and I pay tribute to him for his work. Like my hon. Friend and me, many colleagues in the House have received endless complaints from their constituents about the activities of unscrupulous immigration advisers. They cheat their clients and manipulate the system for their own profit. We intend to put them out of business.
The Bill will create a statutory scheme for regulating both unqualified and—to a degree—legally qualified advisers. It will be a criminal offence—punishable on indictment by up to two years' imprisonment or a fine, or both—to provide advice in breach of the scheme.
Part V also makes provision for the appointment of an immigration services commissioner, who will be responsible for administering the regulation of advisers. Only those who are registered with the commissioner, who are members of designated professional bodies, or who are otherwise exempt, will be permitted to give immigration advice and services.
The commissioner will investigate complaints against registered immigration advisers, in the light of which he may withdraw registration or, in certain cases, lay a disciplinary charge. There will be an immigration services tribunal to hear any disciplinary charges laid by the commissioner, and to which any person aggrieved at a decision by the commissioner may appeal.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should give greater publicity to advisory services, such as the Manchester Immigration


and Advisory Service, which offer a free service to clients, thus preventing them from being ripped off by the very advisers to which my right hon. Friend refers?

Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. My constituents have received good advice from the Manchester Immigration and Advisory Service. I am constantly surprised by how many of the constituents I see each Friday have had large sums of money taken from them either by unscrupulous and unqualified advisers or by less than skilful lawyers, when they could have got far better advice for nothing from bodies such as the IAS.

Mr. Hancock: rose—

Mr. Straw: Many hon. Members want to speak, so I must make some progress.
I shall now turn to part VI, which is one of the most important parts of the Bill. It contains provisions for a new, national system of support for asylum seekers in genuine need. The current arrangements are a shambles. Cash benefits are available to those who seek asylum at ports of entry until their claims are decided. Beyond that point, they are at risk of destitution. Those who apply in-country are also denied benefits, and under the provisions of the immigration and asylum legislation are immediately at risk of destitution. This impossible result of the 1996 Act led to intervention by the courts, which has meant that, in such cases, the burden of supporting asylum seekers has instead fallen on local authorities. That burden has been particularly acute in London and the south-east.
We are past the point at which we can tinker with the system: radical reform is needed. We must be able to provide support to those in genuine need, but we must do so in a way that minimises the incentive to economic migrants who undermine public support for genuine refugees.
Under the provisions in part VI, support will be provided separately from the main benefit system. The only exception will be unaccompanied children, for whom existing arrangements under the Children Acts will continue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: If I may, I shall make progress, then I shall accept a couple of interventions.
The new scheme will be administered by the Home Office. Accommodation will be offered on a no-choice basis, just as it may be in respect of United Kingdom residents who present themselves as homeless, usually where accommodation is more readily available outside London and the south-east. That does not mean that asylum seekers will be placed in isolated or derelict accommodation. Accommodation is likely to be in clusters, taking account as far as possible of support available from existing communities. Other support will be mainly in kind or in vouchers, with cash payments kept to a minimum. Support will be given only to those who are destitute or who are likely to become destitute. If an asylum seeker has accommodation—for example, because he or she can stay with family or friends—he or she may be given living expenses only. In the case of families with children, support will continue until removal from the

country. Otherwise, support will be given until the determination of any appeal to the appropriate appellate authority against a decision to refuse asylum.

Mr. Iain Coleman: What hard evidence has my right hon. Friend or the Home Office to prove that cash benefits act as an incentive for unfounded asylum seeking?

Mr. Straw: The evidence is in the figures, which show that, although the cost per head of benefits in kind is slightly higher than that of cash benefits, the take up of cash benefits is very much greater. There is also considerable evidence to suggest that cash benefits act as a "pull factor" in the case of economic migrants from eastern European countries who have no basis whatever for asylum claims. We shall be able to go into that in the Special Standing Committee.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: What interim proposals has the Home Secretary to deal with the present unacceptable situation in which certain London boroughs are, in effect, making commercial arrangements to dump asylum seekers in places such as Eastbourne, but are unwilling to observe best practice by liaising with my local council to establish the numbers involved, their needs and the back-up required from social services departments and other agencies?

Mr. Straw: We have provided liaison arrangements, which I helped to broker, between London and other authorities through the Local Government Association, to ensure a relatively smooth transition. If those arrangements are not working, I greatly regret that, and—if the hon. Gentleman writes to me—I will do what I can to bring about better liaison between his local authority and the London boroughs concerned.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are very disturbed about part VI? We feel that the Tory removal of benefits for asylum seekers three years ago was an act of spite and vengeance against refugees, and look to the present Government to restore those benefits. Cash is the cheapest, most efficient and most humane way of delivering benefits. Giving benefits in kind causes asylum seekers a great deal of humiliation; it is inefficient, expensive and, in many cases, completely ineffective, because the families involved will have no cash to pay for any small things that they may need. The system also adds to their sense of difference from the rest of the community. Will not my right hon. Friend look at what was done in 1996, and reverse it?

Mr. Straw: It is precisely because we looked at what happened in 1996 that we introduced these arrangements. In 1996, the then Government proposed to end any right to any support for anyone who applied for asylum in-country. Because that meant that people would be destitute on the streets, the courts intervened and interpreted the National Assistance Act 1948 as requiring not the Government, but local authorities, to have a duty to provide support in kind in the interim.
That is wholly unsatisfactory. We have decided, for what I believe to be good reasons, to take away asylum seekers' right to cash benefits, and to take them out of


the social security system generally. These are not British residents, although they can become British residents if their case for asylum is accepted; these are people who are seeking asylum in this country. I consider it perfectly reasonable for anyone who has a well-founded case for fleeing state persecution in another country to accept that he or she will be given accommodation and support in kind here, on a temporary basis.
We have sought to secure a proper balance between ensuring that individual asylum seekers are not left destitute, and cutting off the economic incentive for people to come to this country not because they have any serious claim for asylum, but because of the availability of cash benefits. I recognise the anxiety that that causes a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that we shall be able to allay those anxieties through further discussions, particularly in the Special Standing Committee, but, having gone into the matter in huge detail, I believe that the principle that we have established is the best possible.

Ms Abbott: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: I will allow one more intervention, but then I must proceed with my speech.

Ms Abbott: My right hon. Friend will know of the great concern about the support arrangements in this part of the Bill. One of the many problems is that small groups of asylum seekers far from London and from other minority communities could well turn out to be sitting targets for racist attacks. Has my right hon. Friend sought the comments of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? It is not clear to me that, in principle, the support arrangements meet our international obligations.

Mr. Straw: We certainly discussed the proposals with UNHCR. I cannot say whether it has endorsed them. If it has not endorsed them, that is not a reason against them. It is entitled to take a different view from us. We have come to a settled view. I certainly judged that, with all the problems that have been caused in several other European countries, it was not appropriate to set up hostels, but it is appropriate to go down the path that is set out in the Bill. We also intend that, by 2001, the initial decision should be made within two months, and that the appeal should be four months thereafter. That is a big difference from the current position.

Mr. Coleman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: If I may, I must get on.
We propose to arrange with local authorities, housing associations, private sector landlords and the voluntary sector for the provision of subsistence and accommodation for asylum seekers. That will be on a normal contractual basis, but the Bill includes a reserve power to direct local authorities to co-operate by providing specified accommodation within a designated reception zone.
That power would be used as a last resort. We intend that local authorities should be properly reimbursed for any accommodation so provided. We are discussing the

detail of such safeguards with the local authority associations and will introduce amendments for that purpose during the passage of the Bill.
When the new asylum support system comes into force, there will be asylum seekers in receipt of income support and housing benefit, or who are supported by local authority social service departments. We will consider in further detail when and how those people can be transferred to the new support arrangements, but I need to make it clear that asylum seekers who have already arrived in this country before the new support arrangements take effect cannot expect their income support and housing benefit cash payments to continue for the duration of the asylum application. Once the new support arrangements come into force, eligibility for cash payments will end. We shall give further consideration to the timing of the transfer to the new support system, but no asylum seeker can have an expectation that, by arriving in this country before the new support arrangements take effect, they will have indefinite access to the social security system.
Part VII of what is a large Bill concerns immigration officers' power to arrest and to search. Effective enforcement is an essential part of fair and firm immigration control. Under current legislation, immigration officers too often have to rely on a police presence to perform basic, low-key enforcement tasks. Therefore, the part extends immigration officers' existing powers of arrest and, in respect of immigration offences, provides them with powers of search, entry and seizure that are equivalent to those that the police already have.
With clause 15 in part I, part IX provides marriage registrars with new powers to tackle abuse of marriage for immigration purposes. We have to take firm action to tackle that growing problem. Clause 15 imposes a new statutory duty on marriage registrars throughout the United Kingdom to report suspected sham marriages for immigration purposes to the Home Office. That builds on existing informal arrangements, but if that new duty is to be effective, registrars need greater powers to establish the identity of the parties to the marriage. Therefore, part IX provides powers to request evidence of name, age, marital status and nationality.
In addition, couples will usually have to give 15 days' notice of their marriage and will have to attend personally to give such notice. If the registrar is not satisfied that the parties are legally free to marry, he may refuse to proceed. There will be a right of appeal to the registrar general.
The changes in marriage law in Part IX are aimed at the abuse of civil marriage for immigration purposes. They will not in any way affect those who marry in the Church of England or Church in Wales after banns. They will affect civil preliminaries for other religious marriages, but are unlikely to cause any difficulties in practice for genuine couples.
By any standards, the Bill represents a comprehensive reform of immigration and asylum law. We are continuing to consider the need for additional changes and will introduce amendments as necessary during the Bill's passage. I should inform the House that, in particular, we intend to table amendments to extend fingerprinting—currently applied to asylum seekers—to additional categories of persons, including inadequately documented passengers and all illegal entrants; and to clarify existing powers to charge for additional immigration services at


ports of entry, and to require certain port facilities, which are needed to operate immigration control properly, to be provided free of charge.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way for the last time.

Mr. Vaz: My right hon. Friend has not mentioned the situation at the immigration and nationality directorate. He visited it last week and has no doubt seen the article in The Times today. Many of his proposals will add an extra burden to the IND. Will he give an assurance that the situation at the IND, which has been described as a shambles, will be cleared up as soon as possible?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I give my hon. Friend that undertaking. One of the reasons why, on Thursday last, I went to visit IND in Croydon, was to ensure that I could give such an undertaking.

Fiona Mactaggart: What about the Siemens contract?

Mr. Straw: In April 1996, the previous Government entered into the Siemens contract—not the seamen's contract—which was due by now to deliver a fully computerised caseworking system, but it has failed to do so. There is no way out for the previous Government or for the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—

Mr. James Clappison: Nonsense.

Mr. Straw: We tell the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that the previous Administration were and remain responsible for the current shambles of the immigration service—[Interruption.] That is the truth. They failed properly to modernise the system and to establish proper specifications for it. If the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) wishes to gainsay that, let him do so in his reply to the debate. The previous Government failed also to invest in other means of modernising the system; it has fallen to the current Government to do so.
The Bill is essential to deliver the fairer, faster and firmer system to which the Government are committed. It is a large and complex Bill, and it is important that we get it right. Its introduction follows a wide consultation process. In 1995, when we were in opposition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—who was then Leader of the Opposition—moved that the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 should be referred to a Special Standing Committee. I suggest that, had that Bill been so referred, some of the shambles that has followed in its wake might have been avoided.
The Government are proposing that this Bill should be considered by a Special Standing Committee. The process should enable Parliament to tap the experience of hon. Members on both sides of the House and also of a wide range of outside interest groups, and enable any interested parties to submit written evidence about the Bill's provisions. The Special Standing Committee also will take oral evidence from a range of individuals and organisations. The process will expose the Bill to

thorough scrutiny and assist the Special Standing Committee in its detailed work. I hope and believe that the process will produce a better Bill.
When in office, the official Opposition made two attempts—in 1993 and again in 1996—at piecemeal reform, but neither worked as intended. The previous Government's failure properly to plan or to manage the system has left the system with a dreadful inheritance.
I have read the official Opposition's reasoned amendment to the motion on Second Reading. After all the months that have passed since publication of the White Paper, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield cannot offer a single idea of his own on changing the system, a single comment on how we should modernise the system, or a single criticism on whether we have gone too far or not far enough.
After all those months of careful consideration about the problems of the immigration system, all that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is able now to propose is that there should be an independent inquiry into the immigration service. All that would accomplish is to delay that which he says is needed—changes to the system to modernise the way in which we deal with immigration and asylum control in the United Kingdom. The proposal is bizarre and eccentric, and I think that he will have some difficulty in convincing the House of its merits.
The Bill will provide the United Kingdom with a modern, flexible and streamlined system capable of dealing with the ever-growing pressures and demands placed upon it. That system will better serve the interests of all our people—of those entitled to visit or settle here, and the interests of genuine refugees. It will also give immigration staff the powers that they need to operate a modern and efficient system of immigration control. I commend the Bill to the House.

Sir Norman Fowler: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, whilst underlining Britain's commitment to genuine refugees but recognising the need to prevent fraudulent claims for political asylum and the widespread public concern on this issue, declines to give the Immigration and Asylum Bill a Second Reading because, before introducing it, the Government failed to establish an independent inquiry to consider what measures should be taken to combat such illegal immigration and because the Bill fails to create a situation whereby only genuine asylum applicants will be given permission to settle in this country.
There were two major points in the Home Secretary's speech with which I agree. First, I agree that we must continue to meet our obligations to genuine political refugees. The United Kingdom has had a proud tradition in that respect, and we should not, and must not turn our back on that policy. It has been followed by successive Governments. I shall say more about that in a moment.
Secondly, the Conservatives will support any measures that will help us to deal with potential asylum applicants more effectively. That is why we shall not divide on the main Question, which is more than the Labour party did in opposition. We recognise that the numbers have increased vastly over the past 15 years. The majority of applicants these days are not political refugees and they put a social and financial burden on the country.
I cannot remotely agree, however, with the assertion that the Home Secretary made at the end of his speech that all the problems that we face are the responsibility of the previous Government and that had we only listened to the then Labour Opposition those problems could have been avoided. One of the fundamental problems is that when the Conservative Government sought to tackle the issue, we were fought all the way by the Labour Opposition.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall give way in a moment, but not yet.

Mr. Corbyn: I am trying to help the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Norman Fowler: I imagine that I need the hon. Gentleman's help about as much as the Home Secretary does.
The Conservatives' attempts to deal with the problems were opposed by the then Leader of the Opposition and those on their Home Affairs Front Bench. The idea that the Labour Opposition were accusing us of not getting tough enough on social security for political asylum applicants is ludicrous. Their case was that we were exaggerating the problem and our measures were too tough. In November 1992, when the current Prime Minister was shadow Home Secretary, he said that the problem of bogus asylum seekers had been exaggerated. He took comfort in the fact that
The number of asylum applications has halved this year compared with last year".—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 36–7.]
I hope that his economic forecasting is better than his forecasting of the number of applications.

Mr. Corbyn: I understand that we have to concentrate our minds on the process of the Tory party reinventing itself. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the aim of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which he supported, was to leave appellate asylum seekers in destitution? Many of them were supported by churches and voluntary organisations. Only the intervention of the High Court ensured that the National Assistance Act 1948 meant that asylum seekers were at least fed. The Conservatives wanted to leave them starving on the streets.

Sir Norman Fowler: My point is the opposite. The hon. Gentleman is probably more opposed to the Government's policy than to ours. It is pretty close either way. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), never lets an opportunity go by without saying that the Conservative Government were not sufficiently tough on the issue. It is ridiculous to say that the Labour party said that in opposition.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—the No. 2 in the Opposition home affairs team in 1992—was even more explicit when he summed up the

debate. He said that our justification for introducing the Bill was to reduce the number of applications and the backlog, but continued:
The Government's latest figures"—
the Conservative Government—
blow away both arguments for initiating the Bill. The number of applications is not increasing but declining dramatically. The backlog of applications, far from increasing, has been halted and is now declining steadily as a result of employing an adequate number of staff'.
Of the debate, he said:
I hope that my colleagues will take Hansard and spread it far and wide, particularly among the black and ethnic communities in Britain, to show where the support for their views and for asylum seekers rests. The debate has shown the concern of the parties. This is probably the fullest that the Conservative Benches have been tonight, whereas it is probably the barest that the Opposition Benches have been."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 103.]
Conceivably, we were right to be there, and, conceivably, we were right to argue that case.
In 1995, the same story was being peddled, and the then shadow, and now present, Home Secretary led his party against the action being taken. Let us be frank; what we are being presented with today is a fundamental shift from what the Labour party was arguing only a few years ago. I do not dispute or mind that, although I will express my reservations later. However, this is not so much a genetically modified policy as a different plant altogether. If Labour had supported our general contention, it might have been easier to tackle this problem in the first place.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary will refer in his winding-up speech to any previous period of Conservative Government. However, let us consider the position at the end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999. We are approaching the end of the second year of this Labour Government and, by any definition, the matter is now the responsibility of the present Government. In the 12 months of 1998, there were more than 46,000 applications for political refugee status. That represents not a reduction on previous years, but an all-time record. To that 46,000 should be added a further 12,000 dependants.
Four weeks ago, I went to Dover to look at the work of the immigration service. I was told that in the last quarter of 1998, 2,400 people had arrived as passengers, claiming political asylum—an increase of more than 250 per cent. on the last quarter of 1997. The national figures were not as dramatic, but they also showed a big increase; 14,400 applicants in the last quarter of 1998, compared with 8,460 in the last quarter of 1997. The message is that there is no sign of the pressure reducing.
The Government's latest estimate is that they have spent more than £500 million in the last 12 months on support, accommodation and processing applications. Even if their predictions are correct—which I wonder—they plan to spend another £900 million in the next three years. By any standards, the cost is vast.

Mr. Allan: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the increase in numbers simply reflects the fact that there are far more world trouble spots than ever before, and that the vast majority of applicants come from places such as the former Yugoslavia, where trouble has been spreading incrementally over the past few years?

Sir Norman Fowler: I do not accept that point in the way that the hon. Gentleman puts it. We must accept


the fact—as stated in the White Paper—that the majority of those seeking political asylum are not entitled to it. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Coleman: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the vast majority of asylum seekers are bogus. What percentage of asylum seekers have received refugee status or indefinite leave to remain, or have appealed successfully to remain, in the past 12 months?

Sir Norman Fowler: I will come to those figures, which are a crucial part of my argument.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) does not explain the fact that this country received more asylum seekers in 1998 than any other European Union state except Germany?

Sir Norman Fowler: I hope to answer all three interventions, from the three different parties, by continuing with what I was saying.
We should understand why the position is so serious. We have clear obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees that we should and must recognise, but it is also clear that the vast majority of people making applications in the 1990s have not been genuine political refugees. Many have economic motives, but the majority are not in need of protection from persecution. That is undoubtedly clear from the White Paper and all the work done by the Government and the previous Government.
Most applicants are young men and women. Many apply from within the country rather than on entry. They are not like the Jews fleeing the Nazis. They are using the asylum system. In 1997, 36,000 initial decisions were made on asylum applications. Of the applicants, 4,000 were recognised as refugees and 3,000 were granted leave to remain because of genuine humanitarian factors; that is 7,000 out of 36,000. Of those who go to appeal, if experience is anything to go by, only a small percentage will be successful.
The whole House must recognise the problem. We need to recognise that the political asylum system, as well as providing for genuine asylum seekers, is being abused. Too often, it is a means of illegal immigration. If we do not recognise that, we fail to understand the nature of the problem that we have to tackle.
Criminal organisations are prepared to exploit political asylum for profit. Such organisations may deal in drugs or in people. They do not mind, provided that the people whom they transport and advise can pay. Let us be clear: they are helping not the poor and the destitute but people who will pay. They are what we are up against and what we have always been up against.

Dr. Ladyman: If we accept the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, can he understand how frustrating my constituents will find it that, according to the reasoned amendment, Conservative Members are not prepared to support the Government's initiative to try to address the problem that he identifies, not on a point of principle, but because they have some spurious belief that there should be a public inquiry? My constituents will find that hard to understand.

Sir Norman Fowler: I hope that I will be able to explain to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I made it

clear at the beginning of my comments that we will not vote against the Bill. We will vote for the reasoned amendment, which is our right, but not against the main Question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can also explain to his constituents that the previous Labour Opposition not only voted for reasoned amendments tabled by the Liberals but opposed Second Reading of previous immigration Bills.

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman said that his party will not vote against the Bill but that it will vote for the reasoned amendment. However, the reasoned amendment declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because it
fails to create a situation whereby only genuine asylum applicants will be given permission to settle in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman has given a horrendous description of the huge asylum problem that the country faces today, but his Government put through three restrictive, racist Acts to deal with it. It has got worse and worse and now the right hon. Gentleman attacks a package Bill that seeks to deal with asylum and provides privileges and benefits for the ethnic minorities in this country.

Sir Norman Fowler: The reasoned amendment sets out what we want, because that is what reasoned amendments should do. I do not believe that I have overstated the issues or used emotive language. If right hon. and hon. Members are not prepared to face the facts of the situation—as set out in the White Paper, not only by me—we have come to a peculiar pass.

Mr. Straw: I wish to press the right hon. Gentleman on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The right hon. Gentleman said that he would give the Bill a Second Reading, but the reasoned amendment, which bears his name, declines to give the Bill a Second Reading. In the unlikely event that the reasoned amendment were carried, the Bill would not receive a Second Reading.

Sir Norman Fowler: That has been the position on every such occasion. The Home Secretary knows what reasoned amendments are, and he knows what opportunities and weapons are available to the Opposition. We face not only bogus asylum seekers, but bogus arguments.

Mr. Roger Gale: Is it not a fact, as reflected in the reasoned amendment, that the Bill will give asylum to some 30,000 or 40,000 people already in this country, many of whom do not qualify?

Sir Norman Fowler: That is one of the points that I seek to make. I will come to the exact numbers, about which there is some confusion.

Mr. Peter Snape: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman used to be my pair, when we had such things, in the old days, so I shall give way to him.

Mr. Snape: I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman did not spread that information around. There is more than


a procedural nicety at stake. Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that if the situation is as bad as he says, it is the Conservatives who are culpable, because it is their legislation we are trying to get rid of today?

Sir Norman Fowler: I understand the point, and it is one that the Under-Secretary makes ad infinitum. At the most recent Question Time, he said that we created the problem. However, Labour Members cannot have it both ways. They say we created the problem and then, when they consider the numbers involved, they say that every country in Europe faces pressures from asylum seekers. We need to use common sense. Every country in Europe is under great pressure on this issue. Doubtless, the crisis in Kosovo will create more genuine refugees, but it will create also a new wave of fraudulent applicants. We know that what happens is that people arrive without documents—perhaps from Albania, but they claim that they come from Kosovo. It is increasingly common for asylum applicants to arrive without documents.
We want to examine many elements of the Bill. We will want to know more about the new welfare system to be introduced, in which Liberal Democrat Members have also shown an interest. Far from reintroducing child benefit, the Government are setting up a new and different system. However, the details are sketchy, to put it mildly. Last week, I asked the Under-Secretary about what progress had been made, but about the only definite information that I got was that the new system would come into being on 1 April 2000. He said:
The Home Office is currently considering the number of staff required in the Asylum Support Directorate, which will be the new body set up to administer the new asylum support arrangements.
Information on the source of those staff, likely costs and the budget is not known at this stage because it is to some extent dependent on Parliamentary progress."—[Official Report, 16 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 649.]
We will need to know a little more about what will be a fundamental change in welfare and social security payments.
We want to know more about the measures aimed at transport operators. When I asked the Home Secretary recently about the proposals of the Freight Transport Association, he said that the association was merely a client organisation of the Conservative party. Yet everyone who knows anything about transport understands—and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) certainly understands it—that the FTA is probably the most respected independent trade organisation in the country. It has been consulted by Governments of different complexions over the years, and it is nonsense to reject its advice in that way.
The Under-Secretary is especially aggressive in that regard, evidently believing that international transport is still conducted in the old three-tonne Bedford trucks that were so easy to check. The FTA and the Road Haulage Association have said that they want to tackle the issue of fraudulent entry, and the Government would be wise to heed their advice.
As has been pointed out by the Immigration Advisory Service, the Bill provides for no fewer than 50 order-making powers. We can imagine how the Labour party in opposition would have reacted to that.

Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: Is the Home Secretary intervening on my present point, or the previous one?

Mr. Straw: The previous one. I accept that, as far as possible, we should try to reach an understanding with the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, and we have sought to do so. However, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that hauliers should not face the proposed penalties?

Sir Norman Fowler: No, I am saying that the Government would be well advised to try to reach agreement with the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, especially as both have stated specifically that they want to prevent the illegal use of transport by asylum seekers. I believe that the Government and the hauliers can reach agreement on the matter, and that there is no need for great dispute. However, if the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary simply shout at the RHA and the FTA they will find that those organisations will shout back.
I mentioned the Bill's 50 order-making powers. The Home Secretary criticised the 1996 legislation for being a "blank cheque Bill", and he said that it gave the Secretary of State wide and ill-defined powers to use in regulations. The same criticism can be made of this Bill.
A crucial point about the Bill was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who spoke about the need to combat fraudulent asylum seekers. The Bill's main aim is to improve the system of control. The Government want to speed up the flow of cases and to get quicker results: in theory, that will reduce the numbers staying here.
We hope that the measures are successful. If they are not, the words being used by the Government will be hollow and meaningless. We hope that results will come earlier than suggested by the bleak message of years, not months implied by the Home Secretary.
Immigration control is not just about how fast applicants can be processed. It is also about deterring false applicants from coming here in the first place. It is about reducing the flow of people making applications. Under the Government, that flow has reached a record level, and everyone realises that the flow of applicants to the United Kingdom depends heavily on the message that the country is sending out.
The Government are, with two groups, currently sending out a message that could easily be interpreted as meaning that if an applicant manages to stay here for a number of years, he will be able to stay for good. The first group of applicants are the 10,000 from before July 1993 whose cases are currently being processed. The Government say that there is no question of an amnesty for those applicants, but their policy towards those people is as near an amnesty as it is possible to imagine.
Unless those applicants have committed criminal offences with sentences of more than 12 months, or some other offences, they will be allowed indefinite leave to remain. There will be no check on whether they are genuine refugees; time waiting is the only criterion. We may expect that the majority of those 10,000 applicants will remain, irrespective of whether or not they are genuine. There is, I think, no dispute about that.
There is a further group of 20,000 applicants—although the number may be exaggerated—who arrived between July 1993 and the beginning of 1996. The criteria are also being changed and the test reduced, as outlined in the White Paper. The Minister of State says—what else?—that indefinite leave to remain is a policy pursued not only by the Government. He says that the Conservative Government followed it too, and did so in secret. Our policy was a secret only if one believes that what is said on Second Reading of a Bill is secret. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said on the Floor of the House:
Let me explain carefully this absolutely critical point. Although in recent years we have granted full asylum in only a relatively small number of cases, we have felt obliged, because of the delays, to grant exceptional leave to remain in others. The practice has been to grant such leave in cases where the applicants do not qualify for asylum but where it has been judged that, in all the circumstances—including their circumstances through the years while they have waited for a decision—it would be unreasonable or impracticable to seek to enforce their return to their country of origin. In recent years, as many as 60 per cent. of those who applied for asylum have had that application refused, but have then been granted exceptional leave to remain instead.
My right hon. and learned Friend was absolutely open about the position. Crucially, he went on:
That is not acceptable and it encourages people to make groundless claims because that will delay the process for so long—or the decisions will be delayed by the inadequacies of the system—to such an extent that they will not eventually be required to leave. I want to reduce that number significantly."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 27.]

Mr. Gerrard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way again.
There was, therefore, a basic reason why we acted as we did, but there is a danger of the Government's policy being interpreted as returning to that kind of policy. The message that we are sending out is that delay can help. The message we should send—not only to the 10,000, but, more crucially, to future applicants—is that such virtual amnesties will not be given on the ground of waiting time. Our responsibility is to genuine refugees.
Even more fundamentally, we must consider other issues affecting illegal immigration and political asylum. The White Paper that goes along with the Bill offers a departmental review. It concentrates on the system, and it is confined by Government policy. That is why I have suggested that we should have an independent review that would not be bound by the confines of Home Office policy and that could go into the many areas not covered by the Bill. A review could give the public an independent assessment of the scale of the problem and the necessary action.
The Government argue that such a review is unnecessary and such information irrelevant—indeed, the Home Secretary has just argued that point—yet in a

debate on 11 December 1995, no less a person than the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made precisely the opposite argument. He said:
We need much better evidence about the scale of the problem, and why enforcement is so poor in so many areas. We need to know whether the proposed offences aimed at racketeering will be effective. We also need an examination of other measures that might be taken".—[Official Report, 11 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 716.]
The right hon. Gentleman advocated the setting up of a Special Standing Committee. I understand the case for such a Committee and I am sure that it would be useful, but let us be frank: a Special Standing Committee is not an inquiry. The Special Standing Committee that is to be set up will have four sittings; it will take evidence from various groups and individuals, but it will have neither the time nor the backing to dig into the subject as it should.
The sort of inquiry I have in mind is not a 12-man team or anything of that sort, but one of the type that was once set up by a Labour Government—albeit by Roy Jenkins, whose name might not help my case with Labour Members. That was the Mountbatten inquiry into prison security, which worked with two assessors and produced its report quickly. It did not delay action, but produced a report that did much to settle the prison security issue for decades to follow. If there was a case to go outside the Home Office on that issue, it is doubly strong on the issue of illegal immigration and the abuse of political asylum.
I should like to suggest four areas in which an independent inquiry would substantially have helped policy and might help in future. First, an inquiry should look at the strength and the management of the immigration service. The number of people its staff deal with has increased and increased again. The more effective the service is in dealing with illegal immigration, the more we save on the welfare bill. It is a crucial subject that would benefit from an independent, rather than a departmental, review.
Secondly, an inquiry should examine more strenuously the scale of the problem. There are disputes about the cost of political asylum and about the numbers involved.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: No, I shall not give way again. In the White Paper, the Government refer to 20,000 waiting political asylum applicants between 1993 and the beginning of 1996, but we learn from an answer to a parliamentary question that I received last week that that estimate is likely to be reduced. There are a whole range of similar issues, such as the number of people who arrive without documents, on which the Home Office says there are no figures.
Thirdly, the inquiry should look at the number of asylum seekers who manage to disappear into this country, even though their application has failed—presumably, no one would defend such actions. The Government estimate that there are 20,000 asylum absconders, but an estimate by the former secretary of the Law Society's immigration sub-committee puts the figure at double that number, and the immigration service union reckons it is treble that number. The public are entitled not only to have the most accurate estimate—it will necessarily be an estimate—but, above all, to know why so many are able to disappear in that way and what action can be taken to prevent it.
Fourthly, the inquiry should make some estimate of why so many false applicants have come to Britain—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet. What acts as the attraction—is it welfare payments, housing, the delay in the system, or some other factor? We hear about different adjusted tables that can be produced to play down the problem, but why, over the past four or five years, does France appear to have had only half the number of applicants that we have had?
We shall press our amendment to a vote tonight, because we believe that the Government have lost an opportunity to examine other measures that could be taken. An independent inquiry would have helped and could still help and we regret the Government's failure to establish one.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: No. I said that I would not give way again.
The message that this country should be sending out is that, although we shall give entry to genuine refugees, we shall not allow false claimants to stay here. We shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but we shall work to make it more effective in the way that Labour, when it was in opposition, should have worked with us. I warn the Government that, from now on, the public will not want ministerial excuses or attempts to transfer the blame. The issue is now the Labour Government's responsibility, and the public want effective action.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I remind the House that Madam Speaker has ruled that there will be a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In the nearly 29 years I have served in the House, I suppose that I have dealt with more constituency immigration cases than any other hon. Member. As a result, I have accumulated a great deal of experience both in this area and of Home Secretaries. There have been 12 Home Secretaries during my time in the House, and my right hon. Friend—I am sorry to say this in his absence—is by far the best Home Secretary of either political party with whom I have had dealings on immigration cases.
That is partly because of my right hon. Friend's experience as Member of Parliament for Blackburn—he understands the issues with great clarity—and partly because he is simultaneously firm and fair. He understands the need for a liberal race relations/community relations policy that is imposed firmly for the benefit of all those involved. A token of the benefits conferred by my right hon. Friend was his abolition, within a few weeks of taking office, of the primary purpose rule—probably the most odious restriction on the union of spouses—which was imposed by William Whitelaw, of all people, when he became Home Secretary in 1979.
I support the Bill and welcome it wholeheartedly because it is a package measure. It confers proper benefits on members of the ethnic minority communities, one of

the most important of which is the restoration of the appeals mechanism for people whose visitors visa applications are rejected. I see many cases of that kind in my constituency and sometimes the rulings seem extremely unreasonable. I am gratified that my right hon. Friend has confirmed, in response to my intervention, that there will be a fast-track system for those who wish to attend weddings and funerals in this country but who are refused visitors visas. There is no point in obtaining a visa if the wedding or funeral has already taken place.
I turn to another aspect of the proposals regarding visitors. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified in his winding-up speech the Government's approach in clauses 7 and 8 to the provision of bonds and security. Like other hon. Members' constituents, mine tell me, "I want my mother or my aunt to come to this country and I am willing to offer financial security that I will forfeit if she does not leave." That is fair enough. The problem is that many people do not have the financial means to offer such bonds and security. Many of my constituents from the ethnic minority communities are on low incomes, and I would not like to think that they will have fewer opportunities to bring in relatives for a visit than those on higher incomes.
I welcome with immense satisfaction the provisions for the registration of advisers and solicitors. Any hon. Member who deals with immigration cases knows that there are organisations—and, sadly, solicitors—who batten on the immigrant community when dealing with immigration law. Like most people, members of the immigrant community have little understanding of the ins and outs of immigration law. Increasingly, constituents come to me with correspondence from these organisations, which have not only handled their cases with immense incompetence but have taken huge amounts of money from them. I deal with a number of such cases and shall name three organisations with which my constituents become embroiled.
The first is the Welfare Centre, run by Mr. Abdullah Azad. It takes money from my constituents but often sends their cases to me when he has either botched them or cannot deal with them. Another, in Manchester, is called Ekitok and Co., whose letterhead reads "Immigration, Nationality and Law Consultants". The name of Carole Ekitok LL. B. also appears. My constituents go there although they often do not need to do so; their cases are often botched; and their chances are ruined because of the incompetence and grasping nature of these firms.
Thirdly, there is a firm of solicitors in Manchester called Thornhill, which I understand has now changed its name to Thornhill Ince. It gets involved in cases which have no need of a solicitor because they relate solely to immigration applications. I have now got to the point where constituents tell me that such people have not only failed with their cases but damaged them; I say that I will take their cases—first, because I want to and secondly, because it is my duty to do so—but they must have nothing more to do with those organisations.
I want to end the culture in which people go to these organisations in the first place. It is outrageous that firms of solicitors should not only take on immigration cases which have nothing to do with the legal process but charge money for them. An asylum applicant—I am not


commenting on whether it was a meritorious case—told me that a solicitor was charging her £200 an hour for an asylum application.
A woman came to see me the weekend before last because her husband had been deported a couple of days before. I asked her to send me a letter about her case, and I shall read an extract from it. She wrote:
The day after marriage our agent Mr. Shaikh who is a friend of my uncle advised us give the case of my husband to leave to remain in the United Kingdom for an indefinite period on marriage status because at this moment he … has visitor visa, Mr. Shaikh will apply through … John Fuller Immigration specialist in London".
They were asked to pay a £3,000 cash fee. The letter continues:
We paid £3,000 cash to Mr. Shaikh and John Fuller for applying to the home office and get visa for my husband Tariq Wasim to leave to remain in the United Kingdom permanently. John Fuller's office was in London, every time … he visited Manchester to see us he always told us he has submitted our case to home office and waiting for their decision".
They were told not to worry as he was corresponding with the Home Office. The letter goes on to say:
it cost more time so he demanded more money and I paid £300 to £500 each time … I have paid them the total amount of £9,000 up till now but all in vain.
That letter is from a woman who did not know how to approach the matter and who was milked for money by a solicitor who in the end went bankrupt and whose cheque bounced.
I want not only to hear that the registration of such phoney, leech-like advisers will be enforced with severe penalties, but to know—it is not clear in the Bill—how it will be enforced for solicitors, too. Some solicitors are as bad as these advisers. It breaks my heart to see constituents, whatever the merits of their cases, being dealt with by these appalling leeches. I welcome this part of the Bill more than I can say.
I do not know the statistics—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) probably does not, either—but one of the problems is that even when advisers do not see the validity of a case, they recommend that an asylum application be made. That is part of the asylum problem with which the Bill has to deal. These advisers create an asylum racket by advising people who do not know any better and who would never act in such a way on their own initiative. They are told that another way for them to stay will be found.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out in response to an intervention, if the asylum racket fails, the applicants are advised to go for judicial review. This has created a process whereby decent, innocent people go through a serious of phoney stages in an attempt to remain in this country. These people would never do such a thing on their own were they not advised to do so by these awful people.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has an excellent record on genuine asylum cases. I have here a letter from a constituent from Sierra Leone who says that he wants to bless my right hon. Friend because his genuine asylum case has resulted in indefinite leave to remain. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred to Algeria; my right hon. Friend has a good record on Algerian cases, too.
One of the things that saddens me most about the asylum racket fostered by advisers is that the genuine and deserving cases are considered alongside the bogus cases,

to the detriment of the genuine ones. I welcome the measures to deal with bogus cases, because I want the genuine cases to win. I have many genuine cases, as my right hon. Friend will know because I bombard him with correspondence about them.
I should like clarification on one or two points. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary talked about the measures to deal with sham marriages. They are fair, because although the women involved are often totally sincere, the men are simply using them as a way to stay in this country. My right hon. Friend referred to the notes that accompany the Bill. Paragraph 337 states that certain proposals with regard to sham marriages
do not extend to the procedures for marriages celebrated in the Church of England and the Church in Wales. However, they do apply to all other religious marriages solemnised after civil preliminaries.
I hope that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) will look at that again. There is an implication—not intentional, I know—that marriages that take place within the Church of England and the Church in Wales are not going to be bogus but that marriages within the many other religions that we now have in this country might be.
I also warn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister that although we are to have a one-stop appeal, the provisions in clauses 47 and 51 with regard to appeals under the Human Rights Act 1998 on asylum grounds might well institutionalise such appeals. Unless we deal with the advisers who are corrupting applicants, they will advise people to go for appeal on asylum and human rights grounds, too. That will be exploited and distorted, whereas my colleagues' intentions are wholly worthy.
The Bill is a very important package. It is probably the most important immigration legislation to come before the House since 1971. The Immigration Act 1971 was based on racism and restriction; this is based on inclusivity, coupled with a determination to deal with bogus cases. My constituents from the ethnic minorities welcome it, and so do I.

Mr. Richard Allan: It would be easy to characterise the Government as having sold out on the principles that they espoused in opposition, in favour of simply carrying on the Conservative agenda. Indeed, the record of the Labour party's reaction to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, set against the Bill, would provide strong support for such an attack. However, not only would it be a dull and predictable line of attack to compare what the Minister said then and what he says now, but such a simple line would not do justice to the complexity of the proposals.
The country was badly let down by the previous Conservative Government in respect of asylum and immigration, as in so many other respects. They continually trotted out the rhetoric of being tough on immigration in a way that many of us felt verged on playing the race card, and all the time they were presiding over a system that was falling deeper and deeper into chaos, with increasing backlogs.
I hope that the Minister will assure us today that the Government are firmly committed to improving the immigration and nationality directorate, especially with


regard to targets for processing paperwork. A special concern of mine recently has been the case of students who want to renew their student visas. Their passports are held for months by the IND, preventing them from travelling for genuine family events. Such treatment brings discredit to the IND.
We believe that the Conservatives have little of value to add to the debate, unless and until they have the good grace to apologise for their mismanagement and their failure to act when they were in power. We do not intend to support their amendment tonight.
The Liberal Democrats will oppose the Government on the basis of our long held principles and values, which give us an opposition platform that will be familiar to those many Labour Members who share our values. I hope that many of the Labour Members who have expressed an interest in the matter will be active in Committee making the excellent contributions of which I know they are capable, having encountered them in forums outside the hothouse of this place.
This is a Jekyll and Hyde Bill. Dr. Jekyll has introduced some changes to the asylum and immigration system that are sensible and long overdue. We have no hesitation in supporting the restoration of the right of visitors to appeal a refusal of their visa, although we have some questions about how that will work and what it will cost. We welcome the measures that aim to bring the immigration system up to date and to streamline the controls.
I share the concerns of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about immigration advisers. The regulation of immigration advisers is long overdue and will be to the public good. There are some excellent organisations such as the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre. In Sheffield, we have the Law Centre. Like the right hon. Member for Gorton, I am concerned about how we regulate the solicitors. My experience of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors has not always been a happy one when I have taken up cases on behalf of constituents. I shall seek reassurance that the Law Society will take the firm action that we expect against unscrupulous legally qualified solicitors.
The Bill contains some moves in the right direction regarding the treatment of detainees, but they do not go far enough.
Unfortunately, Mr. Hyde has added to the Bill substantial elements that we believe derive from the ethos of the previous Government and which are unacceptable to me and my colleagues. The debate about asylum seekers has plumbed appalling depths in recent times. Asylum seekers have been used as scapegoats, and the invective launched against them sometimes verges on coded racism. Public attacks on scrounging, criminal asylum seekers will feed the prejudices of some who read the attacks as being on an ethnic group as a whole, be they Roma people or people from one African country or another.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the attitude of the Evening Standard, which seems to have a schizophrenic approach towards asylum seekers and refugees? It published a brilliant article by Max Hastings about Jewish asylum seekers, many of whom were turned

back by Britain in the 1930s, yet it routinely bashes any asylum seeker who arrives in London and generates appalling racism against people who are victims of horrific situations in other countries.

Mr. Allan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that much of the reporting across the entire spectrum of the media has sometimes been extremely confused and come close to being unacceptable in our modern society. We need a healthy and open debate, which I hope will not degenerate into such attacks. I hope that the media will pay attention to the statement issued by the Refugee Council and the Commission for Racial Equality, which calls on the media not to make such unhelpful attacks when reporting on the Bill.
Race relations and immigration are not the same issues, but the linkages are real in public attitudes about our multicultural, multi-ethnic society. We must immediately explode the myth that race relations are somehow improved by talking tough on immigration. We need sensible and fair immigration controls. Tight immigration controls have existed for many years, and no one is talking about radically loosening them. We are discussing changes at the edges, affecting relatively small numbers of people.
The public rhetoric of tough talking often gives the impression that the debate is about an open immigration policy and the prospect of fighting off floods of immigrants who would swamp the country. Such a debate does not help race relations. It causes massive harm to the lives of many people from immigrant communities who properly live in Britain.
Stereotypes about immigrants are created and reinforced, giving rise to a negative impression of all immigrants and their families in this country. In such a climate, it is important that public leaders, especially those in Government, speak up and make clear the benefits that recent immigrants have brought and will continue to bring to Britain.
I shall set out the foundations of a liberal response to the issue. First, I do not say, nor have I ever said, that all those claiming asylum should have their claims granted. Some people clearly do set out to abuse the system, to avoid legitimate immigration controls. Some are simply misguided or ill advised in making their claims. Others have strong cases that are worth testing, but their cases will not prove strong enough for them to be granted asylum.
Secondly, all people should be treated with dignity and respect. Whether people have come to the United Kingdom fleeing poverty or persecution, they can still be treated with dignity. Those fleeing poverty alone will properly be refused asylum, but that is no excuse for treating them poorly during the process.
We must examine the roots of the modern international agreements on asylum. We must remember the failure to accept the genuine fears of many Jews who tried to find their way to safety in the 1930s. Bosnia and Kosovo show us that similar situations can occur very close to home in the 1990s. The majority of those who have come to Britain and been granted asylum are from recognised trouble spots. Home Office figures show that at the top of the league for applications for 1998 were people from the former Yugoslavia and Somalia.
A key issue for us is whether a Government should use the language of deterrence. Britain should not be in the game of seeking to prevent asylum seekers from coming here. There is a fine line between deterring false claimants and preventing genuine ones from arriving. If someone wishes to take up his rights under international conventions, we should not seek to prevent him from doing so. We should ensure that his claim is processed speedily and fairly.
We believe that many of the measures in the Bill will have a serious deterrent or preventive effect that may bring the UK into contravention of its international obligations.
Some of the debate has centred on the notion that this country is a soft touch and is deliberately sought out by asylum seekers who should be applying elsewhere. Again, the figures do not bear that out. The UK was ninth of the 13 European countries in the rate of asylum seekers per 100,000 population in 1998. Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany are dealing with far more applications, proportionately.
The proper way of sorting out who should be claiming where is by improving international agreements, especially those with our European neighbours, not by a simplistic attempt to make life tough for asylum seekers in the UK. Life is already tough for many asylum seekers. Living on benefit in urban Britain, far from their own home, often without their family, and knowing that violence continues to plague their homeland is not an especially joyful existence.
The ethos of the Bill is that because some people abuse the system, it should be made tough for everyone. It is like a teacher giving the entire class detention because someone who cannot be identified stole the chalk. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the proposals for the support of asylum seekers in the future.
A great deal of criticism has been levelled at the voucher system that has operated for in-country applicants and is to be implemented in a new way for all applicants. It is a hugely inefficient system which is costly in cash terms and in terms of human dignity. Can the Minister tell us whether the new system will cost more or less to administer per person per week than the existing benefits system?
There is a logic in the Home Office holding the budget for the support of asylum seekers. It is also important that we remove the burden from local authorities. If we can make it clear that there will be separate and specific funding, we can be clear to people in the host community that they are not losing out because of the need to support asylum seekers.
Once the budget and the funding responsibility have been identified, however, the cheapest and best way to deliver support is via the benefit system. If we have established levels of income support and housing benefit as the basic means of supporting citizens in the United Kingdom, there is no logic in saying that asylum seekers need a different level or type of support. It would be straightforward to have the Home Office directly reimburse the Benefits Agency and local authorities for the full cost of support that they provide through the benefit system.
The Government's argument for not taking that approach is that the benefits system acts as a great incentive for people coming to claim asylum. That

overstates the delights of life on benefit, as politicians often do, by contrast with the experience of many people who survive on that basic level of support.
The Government's argument becomes far weaker when considered in conjunction with their overall proposals. Much of the rest of the Bill and of other administrative changes aims to provide a far more rapid system where claims are dealt with in a few months rather than years, as at present. If that is to be the position, the incentive argument falls apart. There may be some incentive effect in spending several years here with support from the benefits system, but if the Government achieve their targets that incentive will surely disappear.

Ms Abbott: The hon. Gentleman was not in this place during the previous Parliament, but when we debated withdrawing benefits from certain categories of asylum seekers, the then shadow Home Secretary—my right hon. Friend the current Home Secretary—said that the draw was not the benefits themselves but the time that it took to resolve claims. Some of my hon. Friends would argue, "What has changed since we opposed these issues in principle when the previous Government were in office?"

Mr. Allan: I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady is consistent in that view. I am aware that during the previous Parliament my colleagues argued on a similar basis, saying that the issue was the time taken to come to a decision. The introduction of a new support system suggests, to me, a tremendous lack of confidence on the Government's part that they will achieve their targets for a faster system. I would prefer to leave a system in place that gave them an added incentive to achieve their other targets for faster processing than to provide them with a cop out as they withdraw any support from more and more categories of people during various stages of the process.
The new system will create a new class of socially excluded people. It is a bitter irony that we have a Government who pride themselves on their social exclusion unit yet at the same time intend to create a category of people who will be the most excluded since the days of the workhouse. How much more excluded can one be than to be forced into designated accommodation and then made to use vouchers to purchase goods in certain shops only?
Detention is a key issue for us as liberal politicians. The deprivation of an individual's liberty by the state is sometimes necessary in a liberal society. However, it should never be treated lightly and it should always be within a framework of accountability, with rights to challenge that deprivation of liberty. We believe that the detention of asylum seekers and others under immigration controls generally has been and is being used inappropriately.
The Government have responded with an automatic bail hearing, which is welcome. However, the proposal set out in the Bill leaves much to be desired. In particular, there is no guarantee of legal representation at the hearings. We believe that there could be a mechanism for ensuring that, and that providing such representation would save time and money in the long run. The better the representation at an early stage, the less likely we are to run through a series of further hearings.
There is also no presumption in favour of release, a point which was taken up earlier. The presumption in a bail hearing in general courts is that the court should be


in favour of release, with the officers involved required to demonstrate why the individual should be held. We believe that that presumption should similarly apply in detention cases where the immigration service is required to demonstrate its reasons for detention, rather than the detainee having to try to work his or her way round whatever the guidelines are to try to secure release.
As proposed, we believe that the bail hearings risk becoming a judicial rubber-stamping exercise for the decisions already taken by immigration officers. Concerns along similar lines have been expressed by many organisations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Law Society and the Refugee Council. We share the concerns that those organisations are raising about whether the new, automatic right to bail will make any significant difference to the situation of detainees.
Two other key areas remain unresolved by the Bill. First, we would wish to see special provision made for the victims of torture to ensure that they have appropriate medical examinations and treatment and are dealt with patiently and sensitively. We believe that some of the time control requirements for getting all the information in will affect especially those who are most traumatised, who may find it very difficult to present information quickly. However, we are told that if they do not present the relevant information at the first stage, they will not be able to use it later.
We believe that similar provision needs to be made for the many female victims of sexual violence, which is sadly all too common now in war and conditions of oppression. Again, there is a need for sensitivity and patience to enable those concerned to get their stories together.
Secondly, we are concerned that the Government have failed to take this opportunity to repeal section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which concerns the employment of people who are suspected of being illegal immigrants. The Government are merely proposing a new code of conduct. That is in direct contravention of Labour party policy before the Labour party took power, which made explicit its wish to repeal section 8. Work by the Commission for Racial Equality has shown that the section has not had the effect it was sold as having: stopping organised exploitation of overseas workers. In fact, no prosecutions have taken place since it was introduced and its only impact has been to deter employers from employing people from some minority groups, often because they misunderstand the law. It would be perfectly simple to repeal section 8, yet the Government have inexplicably failed to do so.
We would have been happy if Dr. Jekyll had written the entire Bill and it needed only to be tidied up. We would then have been able to support it at this stage, as we agree with the Government that reform of the system is needed urgently. However, the Government have drunk deep of the potion of tough talking and Mr. Hyde's hand figures prominently in so many elements of the Bill. That being so, we will oppose it and ask the Government to return to the drawing board with all possible haste.
It is particularly worrying that the Bill contains 50 order-making powers, so that there is a risk that we will be shadow boxing during its passage without a clear

idea of its effects. The Bill delivers no cheques to asylum seekers but it certainly gives a blank cheque to the Home Secretary. We need to know who is drafting the secondary legislation—Dr. Jekyll or his less attractive alter ego—if we are to be able fully to assess the Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) referred to that during the speech of the Home Secretary. I hope that whatever the Minister says in response to my contribution, he will be able to give a clear commitment to produce at least draft versions of the many orders in plenty of time for us to consider them in Committee, along with the rest of the Bill.
My colleagues and I will be registering our opposition to the Bill this evening to reflect our view on so many elements of it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) will be seeking to catch the eye of the Chair when he returns from the Home Office to make some additional points. We will—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend is a rapid worker and I see that he is already back in his place. We will have a lively debate for the rest of today and during further consideration of the Bill.
The Commission for Racial Equality and the Refugee Council have sensibly sought and received support from the main party leaders for a statement on the context in which the debate should be conducted. They state that they will conduct the debate in a spirit of trying to continue
to provide protection to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution.
They add that they will not
cause to be published, or in any way endorse any material that incites hostility or division between people of different racial, national or religious groups.
I believe that that sort of statement is important, and I end my contribution to the debate by reaffirming my party's commitment to holding a vigorous debate based on the facts and merits or otherwise of particular proposals, in terms of making the asylum system work. We hope and trust that our proceedings on the Bill in this place will be conducted in that spirit. We hope also that leading political figures from all sides will have the courage to use every opportunity to tell people of their support for this country's proud tradition of providing protection for those who have a well founded fear of persecution.

Mr. Peter Snape: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) spoke ably and coherently, but he rather over-used the Jekyll and Hyde analogy. We are all aware of that pair of characters when it comes to the Liberal party. It will be interesting to see how widely the hon. Gentleman's speech is circulated by his fellow Liberals in constituencies such as mine in the west midlands. It will also be interesting to see how widely the Liberal amendment, which Madam Speaker has not selected, is circulated. It seems from that amendment that there is no need for any real control of immigration into the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but his speech was entirely negative about the Government's proposals.
I welcome, first, the provision for an appeal procedure for applications for visitors' visas. For Labour Members—and, I suspect, for Conservative Members—one of the most distressing, as well as annoying, aspects


of immigration cases that we deal with is that people with a perfectly reasonable record in respect of visiting the United Kingdom are subsequently refused entry for no apparent reason. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, not only the families of people who have applied to come here, but the applicants themselves, are refused.
Often, people who entered the United Kingdom and left within the period specified in their visas have had subsequent applications to come to this country refused arbitrarily, and without any apparent reason being given by the entry clearance officer, other than the blanket reason that he is not satisfied that the visit is for the purpose that the applicant claims. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary will ensure that that appeal procedure is quick enough to allow genuine applicants to enter this country for the sort of family circumstances that have been outlined by Labour Members.
This is a complex Bill covering a wide area. In the short time available to me, I want to talk about three parts of the Bill. Part IV deals with immigration and asylum appeals. I have not been a Member of the House for as long as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but I am not that far behind him. I can remember one applicant for political asylum from my constituency throughout the 1980s. I am currently dealing with about 40 such applications. Although I might offend some of my hon. Friends by saying this, I cannot believe that all those applications are genuine or that the world has become 40 times more dangerous in the late 1990s than it was in the 1980s.

Mr. Kaufman: I simply want my hon. Friend to accept my congratulations on the 25th anniversary of his election to Parliament, which is next Sunday.

Mr. Snape: That is very kind. This is one of the few occasions when I have given way in the House without regretting it. I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks.
Returning to a more serious and important matter, all too often it appears to me—and, I suspect, to some of my hon. Friends, in their hearts—that the political asylum application is regarded, in cricketing parlance, as the long stop when all else has failed. I am sorry that I have used cricketing parlance, because I cannot remember who stands behind the long stop.

Mr. Corbyn: The boundary.

Mr. Snape: No, I am afraid that there is someone before the boundary.
Another fallback position is used all too often—the judicial review. Many of the cases with which I am dealing at present—hon. Members on both sides of the House must also deal with such cases—are based on largely spurious grounds for political asylum and equally spurious grounds for judicial review. I do not blame the applicants themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, I do not think that many of them would go down that particular road if they were not so advised. He mentioned certain organisations in the United Kingdom that have established a well deserved reputation for avarice and incompetence in respect of dealing with these human problems.
I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend mention the welfare centre in Manchester, because one of my constituents from West Bromwich ended up there. I am glad that, by and large, such organisations do not flourish in Birmingham and the west midlands area, so that those who go to the less reputable organisations use places such as the welfare centre. My constituent entered the country illegally, in the back of a lorry, in December 1994; was interviewed in May 1995; was informed of his liability to detention and summary removal; made an application for political asylum subsequently, which was refused; married in November 1995; applied for judicial review in October 1997; and disappeared from my constituency books shortly after that.
I am not sure what was the outcome of that case, but in June 1997, I received a letter from the welfare centre in Manchester, signed by Mr. Azad, the director. The letter says that a member of my constituent's family forwarded a copy of a letter from the new immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 9 June 1997. Mr. Azad said that he was both surprised and disappointed, because he had been receiving that kind of letter from the outgoing Tory Administration, who had been increasingly xenophobic during the past few years, when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary.
I do not know how much my constituent was charged for that letter, but I would not describe its value as being particularly great. However, I understand that, until comparatively recently, that organisation was dealing—if that is the right term—with many immigration judicial review cases, as well as political asylum cases, on behalf of constituents all over the country.
It is not only the amateurs about whom I complain and whose activities I hope the Bill will do a great deal to curb. About 76 firms of solicitors are currently under investigation by the Legal Aid Board because of the way in which they handle, mishandle or bungle—hon. Members can describe it any way they like—these cases. Under the heading
OSS ignores legal aid asylum scam revelations",
Diane Taylor wrote in the 8 February 1999 edition of The Lawyer, the legal profession's own magazine:
The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors failed to pass on a report to the Legal Aid Board outlining a legal aid scam that cost the taxpayer millions of pounds.
Former Law Society immigration law sub-committee secretary Richard Dunstan gave the report to the OSS last October.
The report claims firms approached refugees at the offices of the Government's Asylum Screening Unit in London.
They used interpreters to get asylum seekers to sign Green Form billing forms—often in the ASU's toilets.
The report outlines how solicitors offered shoddy legal advice and milked the system.
That is not my phrase; it was used in the lawyers' own magazine.
The report continues:
The average claim for asylum seeker legal advice was up to £1,100, with one law firm alone netting more than £500,000 in legal aid money last year.

Ms Abbott: We can all tell stories of solicitors and racketeers and abuse, but my hon. Friend will, I hope, agree that abuse and poor advice from lawyers and


advisers, of which I am very critical, should not be allowed to affect the Government meeting our obligations to refugees in respect of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We must not let these often amusing tales of abuse detract from our work.

Mr. Snape: I have no intention of allowing those not-so-amusing tales to prevent this country from, quite rightly, welcoming genuine refugees, from whom we have benefited enormously over the years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, the problem with those scams is that genuine refugees are all too often turned away because Ministers, advisers and the Home Office generally are bogged down in the sort of cases that I have outlined.
Although I confess that The Lawyer is not habitual reading in the Snape household, I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that Richard Dunstan, the former Law Society immigration law sub-committee secretary, said:
The great majority of those now operating in the asylum field, both lawyers and non-lawyers, are either insufficiently competent, dishonest, or both.
That is a shattering indictment of certain shady members of the legal profession and an indication of how much we need the Bill if we are to clear up this situation.
When I read the Tory amendment, I could not believe the nerve of the modern-day Conservative party. Someone described the Tory party as an organised hypocrisy; I have forgotten who it was, but it was an accurate description. [Interruption.] It was Disraeli; I knew that my hon. Friends would come to my rescue. That description is accurate in terms of the speech that we heard from the Tory Front-Bench spokesman and the so-called reasoned amendment.

Mr. Corbyn: The Tory party is a disorganised hypocrisy.

Mr. Snape: Yes, it is a disorganised hypocrisy in this case.
The amendment declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because
the Bill fails to create a situation whereby only genuine asylum applicants will be given permission to settle in this country.
Many of the applicants being dealt with entered the country under the three pieces of asylum legislation that the Conservatives introduced in just over a decade. [Interruption.] Conservative Members say that they were bogus applications.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman voted against the two previous asylum Bills.

Mr. Snape: Those three Acts were opposed, because it was clear that they would not work. The situation that we are in today shows better than anything else that they do not work. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) wants to defend the Conservative legislation, he should catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, instead of bawling from a sedentary position. If he wants to make a fool of himself, he is better doing it on his feet rather than on the other bit of his anatomy.
I did not congratulate the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), when he got this job: I commiserated with him. I said that he had the worst job in government.

Mr. David Ruffley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: No, I have only 60 seconds to go.
I still think that my hon. Friend has the worst job in government: it has very few rewards. He does his job extremely well, and so does the Home Secretary. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the Bill goes a long way towards alleviating the human misery felt by many people who are being unfairly kept out of this country, while at the same time tackling the massive corruption—£35 million this year and £50 million next year—through green form fiddles by members of the legal profession. If my hon. Friend can tackle both those problems, he will have earned the admiration and the friendship of both sides of the House.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: First, I decare an interest as a solicitor and as the founder and first chairman of trustees of the Immigration Advisory Service, which, as the House may know, was set up some five years ago to provide free legal help and advice to those with rights of appeal under immigration law. The IAS—which some hon. Members use for their case work and for advice—has eight offices scattered around the United Kingdom, about 100 staff, and each year sees more than 30,000 people with problems.
Having declared that interest, and thanking the Minister for the kind words he has said about the IAS in the past, may I also tell the House that the constituency of Woking, which I now represent, has a large, settled, ethnic population who contribute greatly to the community. They are mainly from a Pakistani background. Previously, I represented the constituency of Croydon, North-West, which also had a large, settled ethnic community.
The Bill has some good provisions, but I join the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) in welcoming especially the restoration of the appeal right for those who are refused entry clearance as visitors, although it is restricted to those visiting family members. All hon. Members know this problem only too well. Someone may come to our constituency to attend a wedding, a funeral or another important family function. There is often documentary evidence in support of the visit, but the visitor, whom we know to be genuine, is refused entrance and has no right of appeal. I am very pleased that this right of appeal has been introduced.
I am concerned that there is no provision in the Bill for defining what is meant by "family visitor". I hope that the Minister will give attention to that point, because it is capable of a variety of definitions and requires consideration.
I think that it is wrong that a refused visitor will have to pay a fee towards the cost of the appeal. We must look into this matter carefully. It is all very well to say that such people will have the fee back if they are successful on appeal, but I advise the Minister to consider this provision carefully. The amount of the fee is not


mentioned in the Bill. Can the Minister tell us what the fee is? Does he agree that, if the fee is too high, it may discriminate against the poorer appellant, who, even though he has a good case, may not be able to afford the appeal fee? There is a danger that there will be justice for the rich, but no justice for the poor, unless the Minister handles that issue with great sensitivity.
I also extend a more than qualified welcome to clause 7, which introduces the principle of giving financial security for entry clearance or extension of leave, in the form either of a deposit or of a guarantee. I have no quarrel with the security being in the form of a guarantee. However, it is clear from the Bill that the security could be the deposit of a sum of money. Again, I ask the Minister how much. Will it be on a sliding scale depending on the means of the parties? Does the Minister accept that a high cash deposit could discriminate against a poor person who may otherwise have an excellent claim, and work in favour of a rich person, whose claim may otherwise lack merit?
Does the Minister agree that the issue of the deposit must be approached with great sensitivity? Otherwise, he will face two charges: first, that the measure directly damages and discriminates against the poorly off; and secondly, that the move provides a relatively cheap way for the rich but dishonest to circumvent and break the rules, and buy their way into the country.
I welcome most warmly the regulation of immigration advisers, which I have called for on many occasions. We all know of the many unscrupulous advisers who have taken money from our constituents, but have done absolutely nothing for them or have given them rotten advice. I would have been happier had the proposals covered the legal profession. There are people in the legal profession—no one whom I know, of course—whose approach to these matters has been pretty bad. There would be no harm in extending the provisions to them. We must carefully consider the level of fees we charge those who are to be regulated to ensure that it is not so high as to discourage good people who do not have much money.
I take it that the Minister can confirm that Members of Parliament will have no problems giving advice in their constituency surgeries on a Friday or Saturday on matters connected with immigration law, and are exempt from any offences.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Provided that they do not do it for reward.

Mr. Malins: I assumed that was the case, and I am grateful to the Minister for confirming it.
Last week, I spent some time at Heathrow airport talking to British Airways about the problems that it faces as a carrier. I knew a little about those problems, but I learned a bit more at Heathrow. Under the Bill, the Government seek powers to require information about passengers carried or expected to be carried on an arriving or departing flight. The type of information required is not set out in the Bill, but will be specified by order. That is quite a good idea in principle, but I believe that the immigration service should use the power sparingly to avoid added inconvenience to passengers and airlines, and, for the latter in particular, increased costs.
Will the Minister clarify the data that will be required from carriers, and the expected frequency of data requests? Will he also assure us that requests for data will not result in airlines being accused of discriminatory conduct? Can he tell us that carriers will not be required to collect extra data from that held at present?
I should like also to deal with the difficult subject of fraudulent documents. Carriers are liable for a charge of £2,000 on each occasion an inadequately documented passenger is brought into the United Kingdom, unless the documentation's falsity is not reasonably apparent. As the Minister knows, false documentation is often associated with clever, organised criminals. This type of passport and visa forgery is done with considerable forensic skill. Many of us have seen such forgeries, and they are terribly difficult to spot.
Forgeries are almost impossible to detect by anyone other than a very skilled immigration officer. Many people believe that the immigration service is a little too draconian in its interpretation of the procedure. Charges are sometimes raised against a carrier and maintained following an appeal, even if the falsity of documentation is not reasonably apparent, especially to a less skilled airline check-in agent.
I also learned that airlines have a problem with outgoing passengers. When a passenger checks in at Heathrow to go out of the country and presents documentation, the only checking that can be done must be done by the person on the check-in desk, who is usually in a tremendous hurry because there is a huge queue. It is pressure, pressure, pressure. That person must check the documents, and check the passport to establish whether the face looks the same; then out the passenger goes.
Currently, carriers face penalties in the countries in which people arrive, having left England, if documentation is false. It is a pity that such pressure is put on carriers, especially because the immigration officers who used to check people leaving Heathrow were removed in July. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the immigration service will act sensitively in future when considering documents and claims.
The Bill requires registrars to report on sham marriages. Are they being turned into unpaid immigration officials? Is there a chance that this will deter members of the ethnic communities from marrying because they fear that it will be used against them and is culturally divisive? I am not sure I agree that such duties should be imposed on registrars: I am not sure that they should have to look as carefully at marriages as an immigration official might. I think I heard the Minister or the Home Secretary say earlier that no such duty applied to clergy in the Church of England, but, if it does apply to them, my father, a retired vicar aged 81, will no doubt have to put a series of difficult questions to all for whom he intends to read the banns in the local church.
I am disappointed about two or three things. I think that the Government missed an opportunity to present a consolidating Bill; instead, we have a slightly unwieldy collection of provisions to be bolted on to other immigration Acts. This is a piecemeal approach, which may cause confusion. I am also worried about the fact that the Home Secretary has given sweeping powers for the making of secondary legislation, while not placing a huge


amount of restriction on the exercise of those powers. The House needs to be kept informed of all developments.
It has been said before that the House has a duty to discuss these issues rationally and sensitively. We are dealing with human problems—with families, and with children—and we must never use emotive language that is guaranteed to inflame passions and opinions, the sort of language we sometimes see in the press. I believe that, although we have some knockabout politics, there is also a tremendous amount of good will and common sense in all parts of the House when we discuss these serious matters.
I cannot let the occasion pass without asking the Minister to focus on the potential problem of enforcement. We may as well have this out in the open. I am thinking of two categories of person. First, there are those who have exercised all their rights of appeal under the immigration laws, who have lost, lost and lost again—end of story—but who are still in this country, and have gone to ground. I understand from a Home Office Minister that up to 50,000 such people have exhausted all their rights and gone absent without leave somewhere in the United Kingdom. Has the Minister an estimate of their number? If he has not, can he give us his best guess, and can he tell us what the Government will do about them? I know that the problem has built up over successive Governments; I was, in a way, lucky not to be here between 1992 and 1997, because it is not all my fault.

Mr. Snape: In view of the emollient phrases that the hon. Gentleman has used, I wonder why he wants to know how many of those people there are and what we are doing about chasing them out.

Mr. Malins: I think it is time that we did know. I think that the public ought to know how many there are, and what the Minister is going to do about them. If they are here illegally and are subject to removal or deportation, has the Minister plans to deport them or not? If he has such plans, what are they? Does he not think that it is a gigantic task to deport tens of thousands of people? Will he make a start, or not? We deserve answers to those questions.
If the Minister is going to do nothing about those who have exhausted their rights of appeal and are still here illegally, let us be told. If the problem is too big for the Minister, let us be told. If he is prepared to get to grips with it, perhaps he will tell us exactly what he will do, and give us some numbers. I do not think that I was challenged when I said in the Home Affairs Committee, not long ago, that there were about 50,000 people in that category; but I shall hear from the Minister later. Frankly, I think that the problem is so big that, if the Army and the police dealt with it full time for six months, they would make no impact. Nevertheless, we need to know the answers.
If it is true that 20,000 people whose asylum applications are currently going through the system have gone to ground somewhere and lost contact with the Home Office—this is a separate category—can the Minister tell us exactly how contact will be renewed, and exactly how the Government will be able to deal with

those people? Can he tell us, in all honesty, that he believes our borders are secure? I do not think that they are. The Minister knows that, while there were 4,000 asylum applications 10 years ago, there are now well over 40,000 a year. He knows that the flow of asylum seekers is becoming stronger. He also knows that, although some asylum seekers are genuine, the vast majority—as confirmed by the Home Secretary—are economic refugees. If the message is spread too extensively in foreign countries—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has used his time, and must resume his seat.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Let me reassure the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) that the borders of this country are secure and that we need not prevent more people from coming in to protect the residents of Woking. I am sure that they are very safe in being represented by someone like the hon. Gentleman, and in having a Government led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I never thought that I would say this in the House, but I welcome this immigration Bill. I welcome it because it delivers on a number of key commitments that the Labour party gave at the last election. I also welcome it because it will be passed in the year of the silver jubilee of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). Given my hon. Friend's passionate support for it, perhaps we should call it the Snape Bill.
In discussing the Bill, we should bear in mind the decision of the new Labour Government in 1997 to abolish the primary purpose rule. That was done within a few months of the Government's election. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his courageous decision, and for the steps that he has taken in the past 18 months to ensure that we have a firm and fair immigration system.
I also pay tribute to the Under—Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). He is no pushover. I do not want to damage his career for ever: he is very tough, but also very fair. I find that in my surgeries I am being much tougher on cases that are not genuine, because I know that when I take cases to my hon. Friend that need to be explained but have compassionate elements, he will listen carefully. I thank him for all the help that he has given during the past two years.
I welcome the Bill for four main reasons. Many of my colleagues have mentioned the need for the regulation of immigration advisers, and the Bill would regulate them. I have my own horrendous stories to tell. A firm of solicitors in my constituency—solicitors are not included in the Bill, and I am sad about that—faxes my office at the last minute, at 5.30 pm on a Friday, saying that it wants to make an application for judicial review.
I feel duty bound—because I stand in the shoes of my constituents—to pass that information on to the Home Office. I never bin those representations. Even though I know that they are not genuine, I pass them on to the Minister's office because we cannot, in the time that we have available very late on a Friday afternoon, decide between what is genuine and what is not. We have


complaints about solicitors. It is important for us to send a message to the president of the Law Society that he needs to get the office for the supervision of solicitors in order, so that the complaints that all of us have made are treated properly and seriously and action is taken.
On the decision to regulate other immigration advisers, I have to say that throughout the country many organisations provide free legal advice—indeed, many community leaders provide such advice in my constituency. I often feel that they take on more than they realise. Immigration is a very complex and complicated subject. Even if people offer free advice, it is not easy to give the sort of detailed advice that is necessary on immigration cases. I pay tribute to those organisations because they provide a service, but people with genuine problems in the complex area of immigration law need to go to those who know what they are talking about. I hope that the message that will come out of the Bill—certainly the clauses that deal with the regulation of immigration advisers—is that people should not touch the subject until and unless they know about it, and that they will not be allowed to deal with it unless they are regulated.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Minister has not been particularly helpful on those cases that we bring to him where duff advice has been given by immigration officers. There is no agreement from his office, and no policy guidance, that says that, if people go to an immigration adviser who gives them duff advice and they are left in a situation where they have to leave the country, they will be treated differently. Even when we go to Ministers at the end of the process, they are not likely to look sympathetically at that issue, so it is important that we get proper regulation.
I welcome strongly the decision to restore an appeals system for visitors. Recently, I secured an Adjournment debate during which I noted the problems in several posts abroad and the difficulty of getting any decisions out of the Foreign Office. Subsequently, several hon. Members and I met the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Baroness Symons, to discuss those issues.
The Minister should go a stage further. The Home Office should take over control of entry clearance issues abroad. It is daft that we have to deal with two different Departments. We first have to make representations to the Foreign Office on visitors cases; then, in exceptional cases outside the rules, we can go to the Minister at the Home Office. That is nonsense. We should have to deal with one Department. It is the Home Office that makes the policy and it is to the Home Office that we should make our representations.
I welcome the right of appeal, but in the next few months we will still go to the Minister and to Baroness Symons and say, "On certain cases that are genuine and compassionate we would like Ministers to intervene because the appeals system does not deal with that problem." Nor will it deal with those people who come to this country who are not family members—I hope that the Minister will be able to describe what he means by family members—but very close friends and members of the extended family.
In the culture of the Asian community, sisters can be cousin-sisters and brothers can be cousin-brothers. It can be a very large family. All sorts of uncles, aunts and in-laws can suddenly appear. It is important that the net

is drawn as widely as possible simply because of the nature of the community that the change seeks to help. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what he means by "family". I know that the Bill excludes close friends, but I hope that we can persuade him in Committee that it should not do so because many close friends wish to visit in this country. It would be a tragedy if they were excluded because of the narrow confines of the Bill.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants is an organisation for which I have always had enormous respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who probably knows more about immigration than most of us, is a former director. It has issued a press release telling us that the Bill is:
Another attack on black and immigrant communities!
It is absolutely wrong. The measure on visitors appeals will be warmly welcomed in Leicester; my constituents have been asking for it for years and years. The Labour party has been calling for it for years and years. The bond system is another measure that we support.
I am astonished that the hon. Member for Woking should start speaking up for the poor. I remember when he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to one of the Ministers at the Home Office when it introduced awful immigration legislation that restricted the rights of people to come to this country. In fact, I think that he was a PPS when the visitors' appeals legislation was abolished, so that they could not appeal. He might have been in limbo for five years, but I am sure that he was associated in some way with that measure. He was certainly a PPS at the Home Office.

Mr. Malins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: As I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman, I will.

Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was not in the House from 1992 to 1997. If he wants to criticise my work in the ethnic community in the years that I was out of the House, he is free to do so and to make as many cheap points as he wants.

Mr. Vaz: I am not making cheap points. I am mentioning the fact that there is no point in an hon. Member getting up in the Chamber and acting as if he has collective amnesia. The fact is that the previous Government introduced most of those restrictive measures. I take that as an apology. The hon. Gentleman was not here, so he was not responsible for the removal of the right of appeal.

Mr. Corbyn: Can I help?

Mr. Vaz: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Corbyn: Just so the historical record is accurate, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) did lose his seat in the 1992 election, but he was here in 1991 when the original legislation was introduced, which fell because of the 1992 general election, so my hon. Friend may be spot on in ascribing guilt to him.

Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am glad that we have someone with such knowledge, who knows about such things and stores them up in his memory. I thank him for his help.
The bond system is one with which the hon. Member for Woking should be familiar because he is a stipendiary magistrate. Surely the bail system acts against the very poor. Let us have a system that can at least be administered. Many of my constituents have come to my surgery and said, "If only the Department would accept bonds. It will not let my relative in, but the application is genuine. It will not accept my undertaking. It will not accept my Member of Parliament's undertaking. What is the point of having a Member of Parliament? What is the point of going to Ministers? I will put up £1,000 or whatever. I will get that money back when my relative goes back." Therefore, the bond system will be welcomed.
I know that the scheme is only at the pilot stage and that no decision has been taken on where pilot schemes are to operate. I put in an early bid for the people of Leicester. If it is going to operate from abroad, I put in an early bid for Bombay because it is important that we have a post that is very busy. Let us try out the system and find out whether it works. I think that, in 100 per cent. of cases, it will be successful because people will not want to lose their money. Many people ask us about the matter.
I am against increasing fees in immigration and asylum work. However, if people pay they will at least have a system that works. If fees are introduced, I will want an efficient and effective system and something to be done about the way in which the immigration and nationality directorate operates.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Vaz: I shall not because time is short.
My constituents would gladly pay a modest fee if they knew that the current system at IND were efficient. What we have is a shambles. I am glad to know that the shambles began—I am sorry to know, but it is a matter of fact—under the previous Government. I want to know more about the contract that the previous Government entered into over the computer system, which clearly does not work.
I do not blame my hon. Friend the Minister for what is happening at IND, but the fact is that there are massive delays. It is a sad reflection that the only time people take notice of the issue is when City bond dealers complain. Page six of The Times today states:
A City bond dealer who contacted The Times was told that it would take four to six months to renew his Croatian wife's visa. In 60 telephone calls, he could reach only an answerphone.
The dealer stated:
It is a total shambles. If you go down there at 7.15 am there are sometimes up to 200 people waiting outside the building and then when they get in there are hardly any facilities.
It is an appalling system.
I know that the Minister has written to hon. Members to say, "Please don't write to us, because the files have been removed." Moreover, the article in The Times—perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is true—states that boxes of files are in buildings, in one case in an underground garage, that staff cannot enter because of health hazards.
I have raised a number of cases with senior IND members—some of whom are in the House for today's debate; it is a pity that they are not available when we ring them up—but have received no response. The only star on the dark horizon is a woman named Jackie Morar. When I contact her, things get done. However, hon. Members should not have to shout, scream and ring up to complain. Jackie Morar is the head of IND's public inquiry unit. [HON. MEMBERS: "What's her number?"] I do not have her direct number, but I am sure that the Minister will give it to hon. Members who ring him for it.
Hon. Members realise that the system is under pressure. However, the point is that people have to get back their passports and have their applications dealt with—which is not happening. Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary visited IND. I hope that the Minister will visit IND and do something about its operation.
There is an enormous difference between dealing with the Minister's private office and with IND officials, who are supposed to deal with hon. Members. Therefore, let us have also a dedicated unit at IND in Liverpool to deal with hon. Members. Currently, there is no such unit, and hon. Members who try to find out what is happening with naturalisations are not receiving an answer. Let us consider making those administrative changes. The Minister has our support in what he is seeking to do to streamline and modernise the system, but he must ensure that the administration that seeks to run the system works.
I welcome the fact that there will be a Special Standing Committee, which is the best way to take evidence and hear from those who will be affected by the legislation. I ask only that the Special Standing Committee visits Britain's major cities to hear from the communities themselves about the way in which immigration control affects them. I hope that such a process will turn a good Bill into an excellent Bill, as hon. Members will be provided with the type of information that we—although we have our own experience—clearly lack.

Mr. Edward Gamier: The constituency of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) borders my constituency for a few hundred yards. However, our constituencies could not be more different in terms of the populations whom we represent. He has a huge number of constituents of Asian and other non-white origin, whereas my constituency has an almost entirely white population. Therefore, my constituency experience must be rather different from his. None the less, we both—I hope—approach the Bill with a sense of mutual good will. I only regret that he felt it sensible to make personal remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who can claim above most other Opposition Members to have studied the asylum and immigration issue with a clear conscience and a well-motivated heart. I was disappointed about only that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
In the short time available to me, I shall not concentrate on the parts of the Bill to which the hon. Member for Leicester, East spoke, but make a few points primarily about part II. First, however, I should say that I agree with the Home Secretary that it is an enormous Bill, which contains 50 order-making powers. Although I agree that previous Conservative Governments have passed similar legislation, I regret the way in which the current


Government are introducing legislation containing regulation-making provisions that allow a Secretary of State in the House, or the Lord Chancellor in the other place, to make subsidiary legislation. I should like more legislation, and more detailed legislation, to be dealt with on the Floor of the House rather than by using order-making powers.
I should like to make a brief point on part I, and then to make other points on part II. I draw the Minister's attention directly to clause 7, which deals with the provision of financial security. Like most hon. Members, I agree that allowing people to put up bonds is a sensible provision. I simply wonder what on earth clause 7(2) is supposed to mean. Clause 7(1) states:
In such circumstances as may be specified, the Secretary of State may require security to be given, with respect to a person applying for entry clearance, before clearance is given.
That is clear enough. However, clause 7(2) states:
In such circumstances as may be specified—
(a) the Secretary of State may accept security with respect to a person who is applying for entry clearance but for whom security is not required".
What does that mean? Does it mean that someone may volunteer to give security?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: indicated assent.

Mr. Garnier: I am glad that the Minister has been able to clarify that point.
Part II deals with carriers' liability. In it, we enter into a part of the Bill that would impose huge burdens on the carrying industry—whether airlines, road hauliers or owners of ferry companies. Part II carries a superficial attraction. Nevertheless, I rather agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that, although many of the provisions in part II are worthy ones, Opposition Members hope that the Minister and his colleagues are sincere when they say that they will consult more widely on how the provisions are brought into effect, as they could have damaging effects on the businesses that are likely to be caught by them.
Clause 18, for example, states the responsibilities of those who bring in clandestine entrants, and that they will be liable to
a penalty of the prescribed amount in respect of the clandestine entrant; and
(b) an additional penalty of that amount in respect of each person who was concealed with the clandestine person in the same transporter.
In no part of the Bill are we told the level of those penalties. Although it is stated that they will be administrative, civil penalties, they will have exactly the same consequence for the respondents as if they had been imposed by a Crown court or a magistrates court. It would behove the Government to be rather more clear—if not today, at a later stage—about the penalty levels that they are talking about.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the previous Government introduced carriers'

liability for airlines, and that the figure has been about £2,000 per individual illegally carried. That is the type of figure that we are considering.

Mr. Clappison: That was a stupid point.

Mr. Garnier: I am not sure that the Minister's reply answered my point. [Interruption.] I should be most grateful if the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but there are far too many sedentary interventions that are not adding to the debate.

Mr. Garnier: Although I appreciate that £2,000 is mentioned later in the Bill, I am not sure that the Minister's reply sensibly answered my question. If he would like to consider the matter, I should be grateful if he could explain the position more fully.
I am concerned also about clause 18(4), which states:
Payment of the full amount of a penalty by one or more of the persons responsible for the clandestine entrant discharges the liability of each of the persons responsible for that entrant.
It is said to be a civil penalty, not a criminal one. Does that mean that each co-defendant will be entitled to apply to any other co-defendant for a contribution? If the first defendant has paid the full sum, will he be able subsequently to recover a contribution from the others?
Clause 18(5) is also unclear, as it does not seem to explain what will happen in the case of, for example, a clandestine entrant who is concealed within a container that is separate from the bed of the trailer, which is itself separate from the tractor unit. All those vehicles or containers could be subject to separate ownership, separate hiring agreements, separate hire purchase agreements or separate leasing agreements. The Bill is unclear about the liability of each of those owners who may know of the concealed person.
Clause 20 deals with defences—at least there are some. No doubt the Minister will say that the burden of proof in all immigration cases tends to be on the defendant or respondent, but we are talking about huge financial penalties and vehicles that could be the only trading equipment of a company being subject to confiscation and sale, so it is important to flag up the difficulties that many defendants will face when the burden is placed firmly on them to prove their innocence.
Clause 20(2) says:
It is a defence for the carrier to show that he, or an employee of his who was directly responsible for allowing the clandestine entrant to be concealed, was acting under duress.
Clause 20(3) provides for the carrier not knowing to be a defence. I should be more comfortable if the Bill said that it was for the prosecutor or immigration authority to prove the guilt of the defendant. There are further problems with subsections (5) and (6) of clause 20, which deal with the defences of duress and those listed under subsection (3). I shall not detain the House further on that, save to say that the provisions are unclearly worded. A little more thought ought to be given to them.
There is a further problem in clause 21, which says that the Secretary of State can serve penalty notices on the responsible persons. Subsection (4) grandly states that
the Secretary of State is to be taken to have served the required penalty notice on each of them"—
albeit that subsection (5) requires the Secretary of State to
take reasonable steps to secure that the penalty notice is actually served on each of those responsible persons.
That is very nice.
But clause 20(6) is extraordinary. It says that if a person on whom a penalty notice is served, or—this is the important point—who is treated as having had a penalty notice served on him, alleges that he is not liable for the penalty, he may give written notice of his allegation to the Secretary of State. If he has not received the notice, even if he is being treated as having had it served on him, how is he to know when he is to give written notice? That is illogical.
I should like an explanation of the definitions in clause 28 of "small ship" and "small aircraft". What is the magic of the weight definitions? Why cannot a bigger vessel or aircraft be subject to the same penalties as a small ship or aircraft under clause 22(1)?
Clause 22(4) says:
The detention of a transporter under this section is lawful even though it is subsequently established that the penalty notice on which the detention was based was ill-founded in respect of all or any of the penalties to which it was related.
There is a potential for huge economic loss there. It is grossly unfair if the Government, through their agencies, can go around giving tickets to the owners or hirers of such vehicles, causing economic loss—albeit that the Secretary of State was not acting maliciously or unreasonably—and not be responsible for compensating the carrier.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. and learned Friend is making an important point with his legal expertise. Does he agree that the issue needs to be examined in some detail? The risk of detention of the vehicle could create such economic loss for the lorry firm or lorry driver that they may be pressured into admitting the offence and not advancing any defence to get their vehicle back quicker.

Mr. Garnier: I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to press the Minister on that in the Special Standing Committee. I wanted to flag up the issue, which relates to clause 27(4) as well.
I am also concerned about the words "significant doubt" in clause 23. Subsection (3)(b) says that the court may release a transporter if it considers that
there is a significant doubt as to whether the penalty is payable".
What does that mean? That woefully unclear expression is used again in clause 27(2)(b).
Under clause 24, the court that deals with applications will be the magistrates court, or its equivalent in other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be more sensible for applications to be dealt with by a Crown court or its equivalent, because the issues involve equipment of great value and, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East was quick to say, the law is very complicated. Magistrates are perfectly capable of dealing with all sorts of matters, but

it would not do any harm to bring such issues before a Crown court or its equivalent in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Clause 25 says:
No charge is payable in respect of any person who is shown by the owner or train operator"—
once again the burden of proof is placed on the defendant—
to have produced the required document or documents to him or his representative".
How can that be done when a traveller destroys an apparently genuine document because it is forged? My hon. Friend the Member for Woking drew attention to that.
Other potentially draconian aspects of the Bill require careful thought. The Bill contains many sensible suggestions, but it also contains too many powers for the Secretary of State and too many areas of vagueness, which cause me considerable alarm. The Minister should pay attention to the few points that I have made in the little time available to me. Unless the Bill is put right, it will lead to further problems and dissatisfaction with the working of the immigration and asylum regime in this country.

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): Before I turn to the detail of the Bill, I want to say a few words about the background. When such issues are debated, the atmosphere is at worst hysterical—as we saw in some of the press coverage last year of what was happening in Dover and the south-east—and even at best full of misinformation, as we heard in the comments of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) about numbers, origins and rates of success.
We should remember that the majority of asylum seekers across the world—the 25 million or 30 million displaced people—are not in this country or in Europe and never will be. The majority of them live in poor countries adjacent to the countries from which they have fled. We in Europe are rich and we are not carrying the bulk of the burden of asylum seekers. It is being carried by poor countries across the world. Even in Europe, this country does not carry a disproportionate burden.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield talked about the vast majority of cases being unjustified because they were economic migrants. Some 40 per cent. of asylum applications in this country come from just four areas: the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. Anyone who knows what is happening in those countries should not be surprised by that figure.
We know that there are problems with the current system. Well, there is no system. We were left with a shambles. The previous Government intended to leave asylum seekers who applied in-country destitute. The local authorities were left to pick up the burden, leaving a shambles. The Home Office system cannot cope. Something must be done about that.
The question must be whether the right action is being taken. Some of the Government's action has been welcome, including the abolition of primary purpose and the greater openness in looking at country reports when asylum decisions are taken. However, the hon. and


learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) referred to parts of the Bill where it is difficult to see precisely what will happen.
I disapproved of the previous Government using regulations to deal with the detail of legislation, and I have not changed my view. In some parts of the Bill—even those parts that are to be welcomed, such as the restoration of visit visa appeals—we do not know what the fees will be, or what fees will be set for bonds. We do not know what the fees will be for the regulation of advisers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to the administrative changes that are needed within the Home Office. I do not blame the present incumbents, because we inherited an appalling system which tried to deal on paper with huge numbers of cases, with no proper information technology systems and no mechanism for tracing what was done. However, if we try to embark on a new system without sorting out the existing shambles—while the Home Office is trying also to administer support—it will be a disaster.
We need to put in legal resources at the beginning of the process. UNHCR said in response to the White Paper:
The Achilles heel of the current asylum system is, in our view, the quality of initial decision-making. As long as Home Office decisions on asylum applications are inconsistent, leaning on questionable credibility arguments, they will be challenged in appeal.
We must improve that.
I am pleased that the Bill will be discussed in a Special Standing Committee, a clear sign that the Government will listen to concerns raised not just by those within this House, but by organisations outside.
On immigration—which only a small part of the Bill deals with—the changes are, by and large, welcome, including the proposals on the visit visa appeal and the regulation of advisers. However, we must look at how the bond system will relate to the appeals system when the two are working alongside each other, as some people may be subject to both. In what cases will bonds be applied?
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East said that his constituents would not mind paying modest fees to have decent decisions taken. If I read the Bill correctly, those fees may not be so modest. The explanatory notes suggest that people will be charged full costs. I would like to see some examples of what that will mean to those applying for leave to remain or for indefinite leave.
I have a serious worry about taking appeal rights away from people who currently have them. Some may be overstayers, and may not have adhered to the conditions attached to their leave to remain. They are very often people who have been in this country for a long time, and may have children born here. In effect, they may have settled here. It may be perfectly legitimate to argue that, in many of those cases, the situation should never have been allowed to arise. However, those cases exist, and many people will lose appeal rights. I have seen nothing in the Bill to suggest that there is any transition, or that anybody who currently has an appeal right will not lose it as soon as the Bill comes into force. Nor do I see what the mechanism might be if compassionate circumstances are to be taken into account.
The same problem applies to one-stop appeals. In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), my right hon.

Friend the Home Secretary pointed out that that process would deal with all appealable aspects. That still leaves us with the question of how compassionate issues might be looked at. If an applicant is refused asylum and is not given exceptional leave to remain, he can appeal against the asylum refusal on the grounds of the UN convention or the European convention on human rights. However, it will still be difficult to appeal against a refusal to use discretion.
Ministers will know that I have argued that we ought to think about formalising exceptional leave and about having a proper right of appeal. I am worried about the proposal which suggests that, in the view of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, it can be decided that an appeal lacks merit—before the appeal has been heard—and that a financial penalty will be applied if someone persists with the appeal.
I have looked through many of the responses to the White Paper and the one issue raised consistently was that of support. Ministers have said that cash benefits act as a draw. I am not sure that I have seen hard evidence to back that up. In 1996, the Tory Government took benefits away from people who applied in-country, but left them for those who applied at port. If cash benefits are a draw, one might have expected to see a change in the balance of applications. Perhaps more people would sus out that it was better to apply at the port of entry rather than in-country. However, that has not happened, and that balance has not changed.
I represent a London borough, and I know of the pressures in terms of temporary accommodation. If the Government are determined to go ahead with a cashless system, the big question will be whether dispersal will work. The history of dispersal is not a happy one. The Vietnamese boat people drifted back very quickly to where they knew people.
I can think of no reason to assume that London is the only place in this country where asylum seekers can live and be accommodated. That is a ridiculous suggestion. If we are to disperse to places where there is no shortage of housing, it is almost inevitable that those places will be deprived areas which are suffering unemployment and economic problems; that is why there is empty housing. We must look at how we provide support, legal advice, education and medical help, and at whether £7 a week—the sort of cash figure that is being talked about—is sufficient to maintain any dignity for someone living on vouchers.
There is nothing in the Bill about settlement. That issue may be outside the scope of the Bill, but if we do not put real resources into helping people to settle, it is inevitable that there will be a drift back. There is a danger that we will create clusters of socially excluded people. Tensions and arguments may grow between established ethnic minority communities in deprived areas and people who have been shipped into those areas, who may be seen to be competing for, and taking away, resources.
We are told that the search and arrest powers to be given to immigration officers will be modelled on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I am not sure what "modelled" means and what the differences will be, but there is a big issue concerning accountability. If I am arrested, charged and taken to court, and my lawyers can show that the police have not followed the provisions of PACE, there is some redress: I may be acquitted, and it


is likely that evidence against me will be ruled inadmissible if it was obtained by methods that do not fit with PACE. What will the redress be in immigration cases? People who are arrested might be put on a plane in a couple of days, so how can we be sure that procedures along the lines of PACE are followed?
I understand perfectly the necessity for change. We do not have a working system, with proper decision making and methods in the Home Office for tracking cases through. It is ridiculous that we have multiple layers of appeals that allow cases to be dragged out and fraudulent advisers to push people into totally unfounded claims. I welcome some of the changes in the Bill, fulfilling manifesto commitments, but there are serious difficulties that must be considered in other parts of the Bill.
I hope that in the Special Standing Committee and on Report and Third Reading we will consider those problems. The first Standing Committee on which I served was on the Bill that became the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; and I also served on the Committee for the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Perhaps I will serve on the Committee for the 1999 Act, but I do not want to have to serve on the Committee for the 2002 Act. We must get it right this time.
I hope that, in Committee, the Government will listen and make some necessary changes in the detail of the Bill. Let us get it right and make it work.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: The debate has been remarkable for the fact that the opposition to the Bill seems to be coming from two totally different quarters: the mature and constructive opposition exemplified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the grumblings of discontent from those on the Government Back Benches.
I want to bring the perspective of a south coast constituency to the debate. We are all agreed that, nationally, we have a very big problem. Not only is it a massive problem, but no one really knows its dimensions. The figure of 46,000 applications in 1998, when there were only 4,000 a year not that many years ago, gives some idea of the scale of the problem. Figures have been bandied about for the number of asylum seekers who have gone AWOL, as it were, but no one knows, or can know, the precise figure, or anything like it.
One thing that we know with certainty is that the great majority of applicants will not turn out to be genuine asylum seekers. Any regime must recognise that the great majority of applicants—who, of course, should be treated courteously and humanely while their applications are being processed, which we hope will be done swiftly—will turn out to be making bogus applications.
It bears repeating that we have a long and distinguished history of tolerance and generosity to genuine refugees and asylum seekers. After all, did we not permit Karl Marx to sit in the reading room of the British museum writing "Das Kapital"?
I welcome certain aspects of the Bill, as have some of my hon. Friends. The simplified system for processing applications looks pretty good, at least on paper. There is a lot of detail to be gone into in Committee. Again, the

one-stop system for dealing with appeals looks in theory to be an improvement, and let us hope that it is. We hope that it will not prove to be merely another excess of bureaucracy. The new arrangements for detention also seem sensible.
There are some real concerns, the first of which is what amounts to an amnesty for 30,000 or 40,000 people who are already in the country and whose applications are not to be tested or justified in any sense. They will simply be allowed through the system because they have managed to survive this long without being detected or sent home. What message does that send to future applicants? Is it likely to stem or reduce the flow of applicants?
We have already heard that there are all sorts of problems, in the Balkans and elsewhere, that are not about to get any better. People will not be less likely to turn their eyes enviously to this country. We should not add to that an apparent message from the Government that if people can get here and stay here long enough without being found out, they will be allowed to stay permanently. That is most unhelpful, and it is especially unfair on those who have been through the mill and proved their case, achieving in the proper way the right to stay here.
I want to focus principally on part VI, especially as it affects a seaside constituency such as mine. The plight of seaside towns is bad, and the Bill could make it even worse. I asked the Home Office how many asylum seekers or refugees were currently living in my constituency or residing in council or housing association accommodation. I was somewhat startled at the reply. It said:
This information is not available to the Home Office and the hon. Member should approach the local authority."—[Official Report, 15 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 465.]
I am worried about how the Home Office intends to proceed when it cannot even tell a Member of Parliament how many people are already living in a particular part of the country.
I then addressed myself to Eastbourne borough council. I should explain, by way of parenthesis, the recent background of the problem. The difficulties with asylum seekers come in addition to an on-going problem that we have had in seaside towns for at least a decade, with the change in holidaymaking patterns, whereby, increasingly, guest houses and small hotels have been used as hostels for social security claimants.
In the previous Parliament, some of us got together to lobby for changes. We were successful in changing planning law and we got some tough provisions put in the last Housing Act—1996—of the previous Government. Based on that, many local authorities, including my own, are introducing a tough inspection regime for houses in multiple occupation. I welcome that, but 1 would like to hear the Minister's thoughts on how the new regime may collide with some of the problems that 1 am about to describe.
At present, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants can come to my constituency in one of two ways: they can simply find their way to Eastbourne, and by definition we have no way of knowing how many people fall into that category, as unless they make contact with a particular agency, it is unlikely that they will show up on the radar screen, as it were; but dwarfing that problem—as far as I can tell—is the problem of other parts of the country, and especially certain London boroughs, entering into


commercial arrangements to house people in places such as Eastbourne, where, of course, accommodation such as guest houses and small hotels is readily available, especially outside the holiday season.
One of the startling powers in the Bill is the setting up of what are called, in slightly chilling fashion, reception zones. Albeit those zones can be a matter for consultations with local authorities, the Government intend, as I understand it, to take the power to designate areas and, in effect, billet asylum seekers on particular parts of the country, almost as in wartime.
I raised that issue in a recent meeting with my local council. I was aware of its concerns about the problem, which are shared by many other resorts. The British Resorts Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, has discussed the problem and its president, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) has corresponded with the Under-Secretary on the issue. The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the problem in his constituency, which is not dissimilar to that faced by many coastal resorts. He queried whether such resorts were likely to be targeted for such accommodation. The response from the Minister was less than reassuring. It stated:
It is too early to say to what degree this accommodation is likely to be found in seaside resorts, but I would not disagree that, along with the major conurbations, suitable accommodation is likely to be found in coastal towns.
I find that worrying, and so does the British Resorts Association.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman refers to a policy that I understand that Westminster council has followed. Will he condemn that council for its practice?

Mr. Waterson: I shall come on to that point, but my understanding is that Westminster is not one of the major offenders.

Mr. Coleman: Who are they?

Mr. Waterson: I shall come to that point, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my own speech in my own way. BRA was not wholly reassured by that response from the Minister and the minutes of its discussion of the issue state:
Members did not believe that the Minister's response altered the general perception that major resort towns were likely to be singled out as convenient hosts for significant numbers of asylum seekers, despite their obvious lack of adequate social and welfare support.
According to the hard-pressed council officers who deal with housing in my constituency with whom I had a meeting last Friday, certain London boroughs—I believe the major offenders are Newham, Wandsworth and Haringey, but that is not an exhaustive list and there may be others who use other coastal towns—are using brokers. One of the most active brokers is VIP, which is based at a post office box number in Brighton. Such brokers make block bookings in guest houses and small hotels in my constituency and others along the south coast. They hide behind a veneer of confidentiality, so when my council officers approach the brokers, they refuse to reveal details because of commercial confidentiality. Those brokers are a front for those London boroughs, and possibly other boroughs, to make those block bookings.
One might think that there would be some comity or a spirit of co-operation between the boroughs involved. The various local government organisations have recognised that best practice in such circumstances is for the boroughs making the placements to share information about numbers, needs and the services required with the recipient boroughs. However, housing officers in Eastbourne tell me a contrary story. They are convinced that the boroughs are breaching best practice. The officers find it very difficult to prise out of the boroughs any details about how many individuals or families are involved, and that is wholly unacceptable. I cannot believe that any hon. Member takes a different view of the issue.
As a result, my local council has no idea of the total numbers involved, the likely stresses and burdens that will be placed on local services or how much greater the problem is likely to become. I ask the Minister to address the issue, because it will take some time for the Bill's provisions to be implemented and in the interim we need proposals to deal with the problem. I am aware that some regional consortiums are being set up that will have some effect on the problem, but will the boroughs involved in trying to offload asylum seekers have a legal obligation to provide the information that I have mentioned? Or will other councils have to rely on such boroughs' good will?
My borough is not atypical. My council officers are doing their best in difficult circumstances, but they have not received the co-operation that they deserve from fellow officers in other boroughs.

Mr. Martin Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waterson: No, because I do not have time to do so. If the Minister will not take powers to deal with the problem, he should adopt a policy of naming and shaming the boroughs which are in breach of a duty of good will to their fellow councils on the south coast. The consortiums approach may be successful—I hope so—but it is clear that certain councils, especially in London, are abusing the situation and placing unnecessary burdens on areas such as Eastbourne and its hard-pressed services, including health, social services and education. There is no sign at the moment that anything is changing and I hope that the Minister will address that issue when he replies to the debate.

Ms Diane Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We oppose the Bill because it is inconsistent with our obligations under international law; it will damage race relations; and it will be neither firm in its effect nor fair in its intent."—[Official Report, 11 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 723.]
That is of course a quotation from the speech by the current Home Secretary in the Second Reading debate on the last immigration and asylum legislation to come before the House. As it happens, that quotation touches on some of the points that I wish to make about the Bill.
I represent one of the largest refugee populations in the country. My constituency has refugees from every quarter of the globe, including Nigeria, Ghana, Algeria and Somalia, and it has a huge population of Turks and Kurds. My concern about how we treat refugees and asylum


seekers is based both in principle and in practice, because I will have to deal daily with the consequences of the Bill if it is not properly and carefully drafted.
As someone who for 12 years now has had to lead constituents through the highways and byways of immigration legislation to try to help them with their manifold problems, I believe that the Bill is a lost opportunity. One of the problems with the current immigration and asylum legislation is that it is a mess. All too often, legislation has been forced through Parliament in response to a scare, whether about east African Asians or refugees from Kosovo. I have tried for 12 years as a Member of Parliament, and for many years before that in the community, to try to understand the legislation and to help people find their way through the rules. However, asylum seekers face a labyrinth that is full of inconsistencies.
The Government have missed an opportunity to begin the process of constructing an asylum system that is transparent, fair, equitable and, above all, free from any taint of racism. For example, the legislation contains no fewer than 50 order-making powers. I have spent much time working on immigration and refugee issues and I know that much of the unfairness of the system creeps in through the circular instructions, the orders and the statutory instruments.
I shall first address the Bill as it relates to our obligations under international law. I remind the House what the United Nations convention on the rights of the child states in article 26:
States Parties shall recognise for every child the right to benefit from social security including social insurance and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realisation of this right in accordance with their national law.
I also remind the House of the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. Article 24 states:
The Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in the territory the same treatment as is accorded to nationals in respect of the following matters … social security.
I do not therefore believe that the proposals in the Bill for maintenance and support are in accordance with the spirit and possibly even the letter of our obligations under international law. My concern is not merely a technical, legalistic quibble. I live in the middle of a large refugee community and I want to know whether the proposals will work. If they do not, they will cause an awful lot of suffering and unhappiness to some of my constituents.
Ministers, of this Government and the previous one, have insisted that cash benefits draw refugees to this country. I hope that evidence is provided in Committee to support the contention that cash benefits are the draw, rather then the length of time that it takes to sort cases out.
Moreover, will the arrangements for support include minimum standards of maintenance? How much cash will people have? My son goes to school with children who are refugees from Algeria, Somalia and west Africa: will the mothers of those children lack the money for school outings or coach fares, or to buy drinks? Will there be clusters of second-class refugee children whose mothers do not have access to those simple things that cost a few pounds here and there every week? I should hate to think that I supported a Government who would impose such a regime on children.
I am not happy with the voucher system that is currently in place. The Children's Society has found, from its east London project, that families and children who depend on vouchers to get food are often subject to racial harassment and discrimination in local shops. I understand the reasoning behind the voucher scheme, but it can be degrading and demeaning.
I turn now to the proposals for dispersal. Given what happened to the Vietnamese and the east African Asians, I thought that it had been demonstrated that dispersal does not work. The Government propose that refugees and asylum seekers—who will not have access to benefit—will be separated from family and friends and dispersed outside London. However, many will come back to London, even though they have no benefits. Some of them will find themselves in places where they cannot buy the food to which they are accustomed, or where there is no mosque for them to attend. Many will be illiterate: there will be no language networks for them to plug into, nor any of the informal information networks with which they are familiar, and the schools will not be used to refugee children.
I believe that many asylum seekers will drift back to places such as Hackney or south London and that the Members of Parliament who live and work in those communities, as well as the Churches and the volunteer groups, will have to pick up the pieces. I want to hear more about how dispersal will work. My fear is that it will prove unfair, cruel and unworkable.
What I have to say about race and community relations has less to do with the contents of the Bill than with some of the appalling comment that has appeared recently in the press and in the public debate about refugee and asylum matters. It has become common, in the media and among Ministers, to talk about economic migrants as if they were subhuman, yet—regardless of whether they are Irish navvies, east African Asian shop owners, the West Indians who came to work on buses and in hospitals or the west Africans who do the cleaning jobs—it is economic migrants who have built London.
I am the daughter of economic migrants, and I take exception to the tone sometimes used to describe such people. It is as if there is something wrong with travelling thousands of miles from starvation and poverty to try to better the lot of one's family. Economic migrants may not be easy to accommodate under the letter of refugee law, but it is wrong to ignore the fact that they are honestly trying to do the best that they can for their families. There is a long tradition in my part of London of welcoming economic migrants, who have done so much to make Hackney the vibrant and energetic place that it is.
The public debate in which refugees and asylum seekers are blamed as the cause of so much crime, for example, is most distasteful. It is sad that it was the Kent police, rather than a Minister, who said that some of the media comment was tantamount to an incitement to racial hatred. I note, in passing, that the Bill does not take the opportunity to repeal section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which requires employers to take details of people's race and nationality. Labour Members at the time argued long and hard that section 8 would be racist in its effect, so I am surprised that the opportunity to repeal it has not been taken.
Finally, the Bill gives immigration officers new powers of arrest and search. Those officers have no formal training in such matters, there is no published manual


covering safe methods of restraint, and there will be no independent complaints body: it is as if Ministers had never heard of Joy Gardner. I can think of nothing more likely to undermine community relations in Hackney and elsewhere than a proposal to allow the immigration officers we know and love to enter my constituents' homes with the power to arrest and search people but without proper training and oversight. I sincerely hope that Ministers will tackle that matter.
If I understand Ministers correctly, constituents of mine who are asylum seekers and who are in council housing will lose the housing benefit and other social security benefits that they receive at present. They also stand to lose their housing. Given that most of them belong to the black and ethnic minorities, that will do no good to community relations, and I agree with what has been said about the loss of appeal rights for overstayers.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when he was in opposition and speaking against the 1996 Act, said that it would be neither firm nor fair. No one has more experience of dealing with the immigration authorities than my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), and he has noted that the real problem is Lunar house. It is a shambles: no matter how wonderful the Bill might be, unless coherence, proper management and the necessary resources are devoted to Lunar house, there will be no prospect of refugees and asylum seekers getting a fair and effective service.
I shall support the Government in the Lobby tonight, because I believe that the Bill can be improved in Committee. I am aware that an interest in and knowledge of a subject is not sufficient to recommend me for membership of a Standing Committee, but I make my claim here and now, on the Floor of the House.
I live in an area that has welcomed refugees and asylum seekers for more than a century. I am therefore well aware of the human side of these matters. It is one thing to put legislation on the statute book, but it is another to live with its consequences if it is insufficiently thought out. I hope that Ministers will change the tone of some of their remarks on immigration and asylum, as they create the wrong climate. I hope that they will address some of the practical consequences of the Bill and that they will listen carefully in Committee to the representations from the community and concerned organisations.
British people have a tremendous record of welcoming asylum seekers and refugees. I want the Bill to aspire to the best traditions of this country, not to adopt the worst reflexes of some of our tabloid media.

Mr. Mike Hancock: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on her excellent contribution. She spoke for Liberal Democrat Members when she said that she hoped that a miracle might happen and that the Bill would be improved in Committee. I share many of her sentiments.
I also apologise to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who opened for the Opposition. I was not present for the beginning of his speech, as I was at a Home Office meeting on another matter.
The situation in Portsmouth is somewhat unusual. The city is a large port, with a large ethnic community. Traditionally, over the centuries, we have welcomed

visitors to the city. We have a good, cosmopolitan and trouble-free atmosphere, of which the city is justifiably proud. A significant problem arises almost daily in the port of Portsmouth, which is second only to Dover in its numbers of freight movements and passengers passing through. Millions of people come through every year, and tens of thousands of cars and lorries. In any given year, a number of people enter illegally.
I welcome the Home Secretary's suggestion that something will be done to help to solve that problem. Large fines and an emphasis on the role of haulage companies and drivers are not enough. They are part of the solution, but not the whole solution. The real problem lies on the other side of the channel in the inability of the French authorities to tackle the issue. I do not know whether many Members, or the Minister, have stood on the dock at Le Havre, Cherbourg or Calais to see how the French patrol their marshalling areas. They have dogs—I have seen them on the quayside at Le Havre—but their operations are small in scale.
What is really needed is a genuine intent among the French authorities to ensure that lorries are properly secure while they wait to go on to ferries. Lorries should be checked regularly at the various truck stops on the major routes in France, particularly those from Italy. More advice could be given to haulage companies and drivers on the problems that they will face. Perhaps that would lead to a dramatic downturn in the number of people coming here.
I recall working in Romania when five bodies were taken from the back of a container lorry on the border between Romania and Hungary. One of the men was young, probably not much more than 15. The bodies were left lying on the side of the road. Evidently, they had travelled from Iraq, overland through Turkey, Bulgaria and so on. They had changed vehicles three times. There was one survivor, and he told investigators how much money had changed hands.
There are huge profits to be made from trafficking humans across the continent of Europe. We must rid ourselves of the real evil of transportation of people. Young girls from the former Yugoslavia or from other parts of eastern Europe walk the streets in most major capitals of Europe, selling sex. It is a disgrace to Europe that that trafficking of people is allowed to continue. We must work together to get to grips with the European dimension, and to deal with the dire situations in which many hopelessly vulnerable and isolated young people find themselves.
I have heard hon. Member after hon. Member speak about the traditions of the United Kingdom, and about our always offering a safe haven to the genuine refugee or asylum seeker. The nation should be genuinely proud of that fact, and we should not allow our reputation to be downgraded. However, I am worried about the ways in which the system is abused. Like many other hon. Members, I have guest houses and hotels in my constituency which are being used as drop zones for people from the London boroughs. I see those people in Portsmouth and I see the problems associated with them.
The VIP organisation is one of many that are making a substantial profit on transporting people from local authorities in London to elsewhere. It is seemingly better to lift the burden of the problem by putting it out of sight and out of mind. However, that policy simply passes on


the burden, and the Government must do more to help local authorities that are plagued with the problem. We must do more to assist people and to speed up the process.
The White Paper talked of firmer, faster and fairer immigration controls. We must ensure that the Bill makes that idea a reality. No one would dissent from the need for firmer controls, but they must be interpreted consistently. Different answers should not be given to similar cases. Consistency is a real problem. We must make sure the system is faster because it is nonsense now. The situation at Croydon is farcical. Hon. Members have spoken time and again about that farce, and I have lost count of the letters I have written asking whether the process there can be speeded up. The problem must have something to do with underfunding in the immigration service. There must be enough resources to allow matters to be dealt with more firmly and faster.
I do not know whether we will ever achieve a fairer system. One would hope that the Bill will deliver to those who want to come to the UK some assurance that their applications will be fairly dealt with. It is difficult to give people that confidence when hon. Members need merely think back over the past half dozen cases to see problems. One asylum seeker who was granted asylum five years ago had a father who wanted to visit him. The father, a Kurd, would have left his wife in Turkey, but he was refused because the authorities were unsure whether he would attempt to seek asylum as his son had. That man wanted only to come for a two-week stay. The reason for refusal was ludicrous.
In another case, a Russian wanted to come here. He had visited the UK many times, but he was refused a subsequent visit. He had once taken English lessons, and the reason given on his immigration form for his recent refusal was the fact that he had asked for an interpreter. He wanted his interview to be held in Russian rather than English. Would anyone, knowing how difficult it is to get a visa, take a chance on being interviewed in anything other than their native tongue? It would not matter how good they were at English, or how much they wanted to impress the immigration officer.
We must make sure such matters are dealt with fairly and consistently at all points at which people try to enter the United Kingdom. Reasons for refusal must be transparent, and people must understand them.
We must do something about the number of people—estimates range from 40,000 to 50,000—who have gone to ground. What will happen to the people who disappeared into our population after exhausting all the procedures? What will be done to track them down? The Bill says little about that, but it has a lot to say about being hard on those people we know about. How will that be done? Will immigration officers be trained in new techniques, and in how to deal with the public in their homes? I hope that the Government do a better job of training those people than they have in training those who interview applicants for the new deal, as it is manifest that much of that training has fallen far short of what was desired. I hope that we see a significant improvement when it comes to immigration.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) mentioned airline carriers. He and I have probably received the same briefing from British Airways about the serious problems

that arise over the kind of information being asked for, how often the Government request it and what is expected of the company. We should clarify the position, not only for British Airways, but for all the airlines that operate in and out of the UK. It is obvious to those of us who have dealt with such cases that there is a difference of opinion among airlines as to how to interpret the rules. It is a fact that people get on to aircraft to come here, but the airlines have problems because of the lack of clarity in the information that has been given out in the past. We have to consider a whole range of similar issues.
We have to ensure that children who seek to come to this country are given proper protection and that we enable them to flourish as human beings and develop their potential while they are here. We have to make sure that they are not disadvantaged by the changes this legislation will make. The Bill has serious flaws that might harm children in particular, so the Committee must build in proper safeguards to ensure against that.
Most people recognise the need for the Government to take action. I know that there will be many people in all the communities that make up the cocktail of the UK population who are disappointed because the Bill does not contain certain measures. Our consideration of the way in which people are given the right to come to this country is long overdue, and many of the Bill's provisions will be welcomed. However, many will cause problems, fester and cause greater resentment about how we as a nation respond to the issue of immigration; an opportunity will have been lost.
I welcome the tighter controls on immigration advisers, but I am bitterly disappointed that lawyers will not be covered. For the life of me, I cannot believe that the Law Society has either the will or the wherewithal to deliver on its commitment. I have seen many cases of people being charged for letters that I wrote on their behalf, and I find that offensive. Like the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), I have lost count of the number of late-night faxes that I have received on a Friday, asking whether I can take over a case and get leave for someone to remain while the lawyers seek more time. What they are really asking is for more time to enable them to make more money out of those poor people before they are sent back—

Mr. Simon Hughes: And more mistakes.

Mr. Hancock: Indeed—time to make more mistakes. The delivery of justice to many of these people is an utter travesty—they are ripped off, time and again, by unscrupulous lawyers and others.
There are genuine advisers out there. It is annoying that the Home Office knows who those people are but does nothing, whereas what we need to do is put resources into ensuring that good practice spreads and is used more often. In that way, we can ensure that people have proper representation at all stages of the process. We have to make sure that lawyers take on immigration work only if someone in the practice is competent to deliver a proper service.
The issue is a big one and I am disappointed that the Government have not been big enough to face up to the size of the problem. Much remains to be done and there will be a lot of disappointed people if we do not do it. We have to take action, but we must not make things so


difficult that genuine refugees and genuine visitors to this country feel unwelcome and unwanted. We have to make it clear that people who have a good case will to be welcome and that there is a process allowing their case to be heard. Genuine visitors to this country—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to an important debate. At the outset, I should declare an interest: I have been a practising barrister specialising in, among other things, immigration law. In the light of some of the remarks made by hon. Members this evening, I am not entirely sure whether I should instead apologise for that.
As we all know, the Bill was introduced to deal with the chaotic shambles that was the legacy of the previous Government. I do not want to take up the House's time going over that ground again, because other hon. Members, especially Labour Members, have dealt with those issues. Instead, in the hope that reassurance will be forthcoming, I shall raise with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench specific concerns relating to asylum and support for asylum seekers. I shall address only certain fundamental principles, rather than the detailed concerns which I and others have raised tonight and will, no doubt, raise on other occasions.
I have listened carefully to the debate thus far and I think that I accurately understand the Government's argument. The Government continue to affirm their absolute determination to fulfil all our obligations, both legal and moral, to genuine refugees; however, they also say, rightly, that the present system is being abused. They say that the claims of some of those who are claiming asylum are not genuine; that such claimants undermine support for genuine refugees; and that they increase the delays in dealing with all the claims that are made. The Government appear to claim that it is in part that which lies behind the chaos and shambles at Lunar house.
The Government's three watchwords for reform are those by which last July's White Paper was titled: "Fairer, Faster and Firmer". They say that we must be fair, so as to fulfil our obligations; that we must do so speedily, so that we can cut the backlog in which so many languish; and that we must be firm with those who abuse the system. Against that broadly described argument, the compass of the fears that I express tonight can be narrowly described, for I agree that we must be fair; I agree that we must be fast; but I am concerned that, in our search for firmness, we might sacrifice fairness. I am concerned that we might be at risk of making that error by falling into the trap of wrongly identifying the reasons why people falsely claim asylum.
The reasons are often rooted in abject poverty and lack of opportunity. Those factors may not found a legitimate claim for asylum, but nevertheless, for some people, they make terrible risks worth taking. With that in mind, we have to acknowledge the fact that there might be little we can do domestically to deter those who are desperate to come here—those who climb into the holds of aircraft, lodge themselves above the axles of articulated lorries, or cram themselves with many others into the back of those lorries and travel thousands of miles. I do not believe that people take such risks for the sake of the odd quid in benefits.
We all know that asylum seekers in this country suffer great hardship when they arrive here. We know that nearly two thirds of those interviewed by the Refugee Council did not have enough to eat on a daily basis; and that nearly three quarters were penniless, without the cash for bus fares and other necessities. I do not believe that those people come here because of the odd quid in benefits. They take the risks that have been described, partly because of cultural ties that draw them here, but mostly because of the conditions from which they are fleeing. The evidence largely bears that out.
The Government have set their sights on those who abuse the system. Many of their targets are not only wholly legitimate, but targets that are essential for us to aim at, and to hit: the corrupt, who give clandestine passage in appalling and unsafe conditions, often at great expense to those who are transported; the rogue advisers, who exploit their clients after they arrive in this country; and all those who trade in the exploitation of human suffering. However, I am concerned that the Government have, in part, also set their sights on those who are suffering, especially those whom they describe as mere economic migrants.
I understand that economic migrants might not be—indeed, are not—entitled to asylum, but the Government have to acknowledge certain truths when formulating their approach to such people. First, alongside economic migrants will come many people who have been persecuted, who truly fear for their lives, whose human rights are in grave jeopardy and to whom barriers designed to tackle economic migrants will be barriers also.
Secondly, economic migrants also have fundamental human rights. Thirdly—and perhaps most importantly in terms of practical decision making—even those whom the Government call "economic migrants" have their own reasons for fleeing. I do not believe that cash payments are, in the grand design of things—in Kosovo, Somalia or Afghanistan—the significant incentive for unfounded applications. However, I believe that cash payments may do much to give those who come to this country as asylum seekers just a little dignity.
Therefore, I believe that some of the measures enshrined in the Bill may have little effect on the number of applicants with which we must deal and will merely ensure that we treat applicants—including those whose claims of persecution and fear of persecution are later upheld—less humanely upon their arrival. In short, we may achieve firmness at the expense of fairness.
I have chosen to keep to the general principles. I understand fully the grave necessity of introducing a Bill in order to tackle the appalling legacy left us. I agree that we must be fair, fast and firm. I will support the Bill tonight because it is imperative that we progress legislation to deal with the case backlog that we have inherited and because much of the legislation is greatly needed and very good. However, I fear that, in this Bill, we may not achieve all that we endeavour to achieve. I know that we have fallen well short of the ideals that I hold dear and that one far-off day we may be brave enough to attempt to get closer to achieving them.
Many hon. Members could describe their core political beliefs in two phrases: "I am my brother's keeper" and "I do not pass by on the other side". My right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill and opened the debate said just


the other day that we cannot become a "walk-on by society". I believe that is an enduring truth that has a resonance which is greater than merely asking people to do what they must in order to help tackle certain crimes. It calls for humanity, caring and compassion on a much larger scale, running through all aspects of our associations with each other, within this nation and across the globe.
That truth lies behind the entreaties that could tackle the causes of asylum seeking, including economic migration. When the least of our brothers and sisters are hungry, we should give them something to eat. When they are thirsty, we should give them something to drink. When they are in need of clothes, we should give them something to wear. We are told what we should do when asylum is sought—in principle, at least. When the least of our brothers and sisters are strangers, we should invite them in. It is a great pity that the remaining entreaty from the same text is most relevant today: when they are in prison, we should go and visit them.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am glad to make a brief contribution to tonight's debate because, due to other commitments, I do not expect that I shall serve on the Special Standing Committee that will consider the legislation. I shall concentrate tonight on two or three issues.
The number of asylum applications has undoubtedly increased since this Government came to power. There were 46,000 applications for political asylum in 1998 compared with 35,000 in 1997. In addition, those 46,000 applicants had 12,000 dependants. The total number of applicants in 1998 was the highest on record, and there is no sign that the influx of asylum seekers will abate.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry, but the debate is time limited. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I must continue.
There were 14,400 applications for asylum in the last quarter of 1998 compared with 8,455 in the last quarter of 1997. I was interested to hear several hon. Members—particularly those from the Government side—refer to their constituency postbags and the large proportion of applications that they receive that they believe to be bogus. That is clearly a matter of great concern to all our constituents. I echo the comments made on both sides of the House about the unscrupulous immigration advisers with whom this Bill seeks to deal, in part.
In their explanatory notes to the Bill, the Government spell out the perceived financial effects of the legislation. I have some queries about those suggested effects. I believe that many of the Government's comments in the explanatory notes are in doubt, particularly in light of the continuing increase in the number of asylum seekers that I have cited. The Government suggest that the costs and savings that they have described depend on a range of assumptions
many of which cannot easily be quantified. For these reasons the figures given are estimates only.

I must be fair to the Government and point out that latter sentence. The explanatory notes continue:
All costs are full year costs and are given at current prices.
The Government state:
Taken as a whole the Bill is intended to reduce the costs of the immigration and asylum system. It is expected therefore that this Bill will produce savings, in particular on the support costs for asylum seekers.
In part I, the Government refer to the financial effects of charging for applications for extensions of stay or duplicate endorsements, and state:
the levying of fees could reduce public expenditure by £15 million or more annually.
They say that this will depend
on the number of applications made within the chargeable categories".
Under part II, "Carriers' Liability", the Government say that the operation of the new civil penalty regime will be met from existing resources. They state:
On the basis of 18,000 clandestines detected in 1998, the penalties raised could amount to a maximum of about £16 million a year. The actual amount raised is likely to be substantially lower as a result of the deterrent effect of the penalty and the safeguards which will mean that a penalty is not owed in all cases.
I shall turn in a moment to the grave concerns expressed by the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association and their members about the Bill's provisions regarding carriers' liability.
When it comes to the extra costs involved in the equation, the Government state:
It is estimated that the maximum cost of providing automatic bail hearings for immigration detainees will be around £3 million. Some initial training for magistrates involved in this work is also likely to be needed.
The Government do not cost the latter provision. I suggest that more than "initial training" will be necessary. It is likely that much training will be needed in connection with the new proposals. The cost of that may have been underestimated. From my experience in the courts, I suspect that the cost of providing automatic bail hearings could be great.
We then turn to the Government's estimated costs of the comprehensive right of appeal. The Government state:
It is anticipated that the new system of immigration and asylum appeals will yield savings by compressing issues presently spread over a number of appeal rights into a single appeal hearing. Other procedural changes designed to enable more cases, particularly at Tribunal level, to be dealt with on the papers and to discourage meritless appeals should also produce savings.
I am very sceptical about that. I suspect that there will be substantial increases in costs as a result of the additional appeals, and the Government concede:
On the other hand, there may be additional appeals arising from claims made under the European Convention on Human Rights.
My experience in the courts leads me to suggest that any case that goes to Europe, especially under the European convention on human rights, becomes very expensive. The Government's suggestion—under part IV of the notes, which is entitled "Appeals"—that
overall, the changes could produce savings of up to £3.8 million a year compared with the current system
is wildly optimistic. Indeed, I suggest that the appeals system will lead to yet a further cost to the taxpayer.
On visitor appeals, the Government suggest that the net additional cost, which they concede, will be
of the order of £0.4 million.
I suspect that they have set it out that way because it sounds smaller. Every other estimate is set out in hundreds of thousands of pounds, but this one is set out as £0.4 million. Once again, the visitor appeals cost estimate is a wild underestimate, and I suspect that the cost to the taxpayer will be a great deal more.
Under the heading "Immigration Appellate Authorities", the Government suggest that there will be a saving of £350,000 as a result of the removal of the lay members from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I am rather surprised that the Government have done that; nevertheless, they suggest that a small saving will be made.
Under the heading "Immigration advisers and immigration service providers", the Government suggest that the scheme will be self-financing, but add:
A Non-Departmental Public Body will be created to regulate immigration advisers, headed by a Commissioner, a Deputy and an administrative team. The cost of the NDPB, including investigating complaints, and an appeals mechanism will be met from fee income. It is not expected that the scheme will lead to any additional public expenditure.
It would be miraculous if a new quango did not involve any net cost. I suspect that in the years to come—I shall be watching with great interest—we shall find that the NDPB will become a new bureaucratic empire, which will be extremely costly to the public purse.
Under part VI, "Support for asylum seekers", there will be a new asylum seeker support budget managed by the Home Office
On the basis that the new support scheme will be a disincentive to economic migrants who do not have a well founded fear of persecution".
The Government are suggesting a reducing budget—£350 million for 1999–2000, £300 million for 2000–2001, and £250 million for 2001–02. The notes continue:
This was based on estimated costs; it compared with spending of about £400 million"—

Mr. Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hawkins: No, we are under a time pressure; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I am trying to keep my remarks brief because of the limited time.
The notes state that the Government's reducing budget
compared with spending of about £400 million a year when the Government announced its immigration and asylum strategy in July 1998, which would have increased to £800 million by 2002 if remedial action had not been taken.
We now come to the most crucial words of all:
Actual spend will depend on a number of factors such as the number of asylum claims and the speed with which they can be handled. These cost estimates may be revised in due course.
I am absolutely certain that they will be revised in due course, because I suspect that the Bill will lead to huge increases in the cost to the public purse. Conservative Members will be watching that with great care.
Having dealt with financial concerns, we come to concerns about natural justice, particularly those of people involved in the road haulage industry. I am certainly

worried by what I am told by the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association on behalf of their members, some of whom are my constituents.
The FTA and the RHA point out that the primary reason that illegal immigrants target the UK as their final destination is that our welfare and benefit system is particularly attractive. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) pointed out that there is nothing immoral in being an economic migrant and seeking to better oneself. We can all agree with that, but I repeatedly hear concerns from my constituents about the people who wish to take advantage of our benefit system and have no genuine fear of persecution but simply come here in order to scrounge off the welfare state.
The FTA and the RHA state that the chances of illegal immigrants being detected by the authorities are very small. Statistics show that more than 90 per cent. of the illegal immigrants detected in vehicles are detained as a result of voluntary action by the driver or operator of a vehicle; only 3 per cent. are detected by foreign authorities and a further 3 per cent. by UK authorities.
As those two organisations say, the Bill contains no commitment from the Government to encourage any greater co-operation from foreign port authorities to improve security and detection in and around ports—there is not even a commitment to work in tandem with our European partners in France and their port authorities. Also, there is no commitment to increase enforcement activity in the United Kingdom to improve detection rates. Innocent drivers who subsequently discover illegal immigrants aboard their vehicles will now have no incentive to report them to the authorities as so many of them currently do.
The FTA and RHA emphasise the important point that once detected, very few illegal immigrants are deported. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and others pointed out that the prospect of a substantial amnesty being granted to many of those who have sought asylum over the past few years with no proper claim will increase the temptation for those without a legitimate claim nevertheless to seek asylum in Britain.
The FTA and the RHA believe that the Government are using drivers and operators of commercial vehicles as scapegoats, rather than introducing measures to tackle the problem directly. It was a matter of great concern that in the House on Monday 15 February the Minister stated:
Lorry drivers are neglecting to check their loads. It is difficult to resist the idea that most drivers are either culpable, because they accept bribes, or, at best, negligent, because they do not check their loads."—[Official Report, 15 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 592.]
It is fortunate that the Minister was protected by parliamentary privilege when he made that statement in the House. Had he suggested outside the House that most lorry drivers were accepting bribes or were negligent, I expect that he would have faced action. One remembers a former Conservative Minister who got into terrible trouble for referring to "most"—in her case, most egg producers. Much embarrassment was caused by that.
On the most recent occasion, the Minister was protected by parliamentary privilege, but he subsequently seems to have accepted that drivers who can demonstrate that they have checked their loads, yet are still unknowingly carrying illegal immigrants, should be provided with some means of defence against the proposed fines. Sadly, the Bill fails to provide adequate safeguards.
The FTA and RHA suggest various amendments. Having considered them, I believe those are sensible proposals. In particular, the organisations suggest deleting clause 20(3)(c) in order to ensure that fair and reasonably achievable defence is available where carriers can demonstrate due diligence. They also suggest that the Secretary of State's commitment to a linked code of practice should be confirmed before any clauses enacting penalties are brought into force.
The FTA and RHA further suggest that there should be an automatic defence where there has been voluntary action by the driver or operator leading to the apprehension of illegal immigrants. Fairness requires that. It is also proposed that there should be provision for compensation where the detention of a vehicle is subsequently determined to be ill-founded. That is particularly important because so many hauliers are small family firms, which may have no more than one, two or three vehicles. The survival of the firm might depend on such compensation.
The FTA and RHA believe that there should be a quickly accessible appeal procedure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Bill is designed to deliver Labour's commitment to a firmer, faster and fairer immigration system. If one examines the Government's record so far, it is clear that there has been progress in making the immigration system fairer, with the abolition of the primary purpose rule, the introduction of the right of appeal for people facing deportation on national security grounds, the current commitment to radical action to settle the status of people whose asylum claims have been in limbo for more than seven years, and the opening up of the instructions to immigration officers, which for years before had been secret.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary not to rest on those laurels. The system is still extremely unfair. It is so concerned to exclude the unqualified that the rights of those who are qualified to remain can be sacrificed. In common humanity, we should accept a fundamental truth—that it is worse wrongly to refuse a genuine applicant than to admit one who is not entitled to enter under the rules.
What is the consequence of pretending that the opposite is true? It is to say to the racists who have constantly clamoured for new restrictions that their demands were justified. It implies that the public interest rests only in restricting access to Britain.
The Bill aims to be fairer by being faster. That is a concept to which I could sign up. I have always believed that the delays that have characterised the system for more than 30 years are oppressive to the genuine applicants who want to join their family or who are frightened victims of oppression overseas.
Delays create cynicism and unscrupulous advice. Government sound and fury, which we have heard for so many years, rings hollow when it has been blunted by delays that advantage only the person whose desire is to string out his or her stay in Britain.
If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary examines previous reforms, he will find that it was claimed that they would lead to speedier decisions. In fact, they did not. Despite the claims of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 would lead to decisions being made within three months, by 1996, the delay had reached 19 months. Now, asylum claims made before 1993 have taken an average of about seven years to decide. More recent applications have been taking 20 months. That was the position in December.
These delays are coupled with delays overseas. I saw recently one of my constituents who had applied for her husband to join her in July 1996. There has still not been a decision.
A crucial way in which the Bill is designed to speed up the process is by consolidating appeal rights. There is now a consensus that it is time to end duplicate appeals. I am concerned that the consolidation may not deliver what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary promised us in a letter of 9 February, which was
a single, comprehensive appeal which would ensure that all the factors in a case are considered fairly and quickly.
The White Paper points out that in many cases, compassionate circumstances, especially those concerning children, come to the fore only at too late a stage. I suggest that those circumstances should be able to be considered at an earlier stage, and should be considered in all appeals. Under paragraph 364 of the present immigration rules, the Secretary of State must take into account on deportation all relevant factors known to him, including age, length of residence in the United Kingdom, strength of connections with the UK, personal history including character, conduct and employment record, domestic circumstances, criminal record, compassionate circumstances and any representations received on a person's behalf. It seems that if a comprehensive appeal was available, much of the business that we as Members are constantly asked to undertake would be unnecessary and that the real circumstances of the whole of a person's life could be taken into account on appeal.
I am concerned, however, that people who currently have the appeal that I have described available to them will have it taken from them in the interests of speeding up the system. That seems utterly illogical. This particular right of appeal was exercised by fewer than 900 people in 1997—some successfully. That is a small number of people when set against the 35,000 who exercised the right generally.
When the previous Government limited the right of appeal to those who had been in the United Kingdom for seven years, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), now Secretary of State for Wales, said:
The decision to take away the right of an intended deportee to challenge the decision to deport him or her puts limitless power into the hands of the Executive. It poses such a serious threat to fair and just immigration control, a claimed objective of the Government in the implementation of their policy in this regard, that the whole clause should be removed.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 12 January 1988; c. 529.]
I am not in the habit of quoting Ministers and setting history against them because often it is not exactly relevant to do so. However, in this instance it is absolutely relevant. We are doing what we condemned the Opposition for doing when they were in power—and


we are doing it worse. I believe that this will have the unintended consequence of causing people to make a claim for asylum to which they are not entitled because that is the only way of their having any prospect of getting the circumstances of their case considered. As a result of clause 16, those people will face an extra risk of criminal prosecution. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I shall be grateful if he is able to assure me that it is not intended to use clause 16 routinely in that way.
There are other provisions in the Bill that might speed things up. For example, there are proposed new powers to give leave overseas. I am concerned that the 58 separate powers that the Home Secretary reserves to himself, or the Lord Chancellor, may not always be used as fairly as I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would wish. It is the job of Back-Bench Members to ensure that there is legislation that is proof against any Home Secretary. It is important that we know exactly how it is intended to implement the provisions.
The key to speeding things up is the administration of control. I have said in interventions that I believe that the previous Government were grotesquely negligent in the way that they allowed the computerisation of the administration of control to develop. The aim was to create a paperless system, to start in September 1997. In desperation, the Home Office has, without fully evaluating its pilot scheme, rolled out the new paperless system—using paper.
The staff have moved to new offices, there are not enough chairs for everyone employed there to sit down, the people who were employed to carry the paper around are no longer employed and about 16,000 pieces of mail are unopened. Some of that mail is trapped in a basement, which people cannot get into because of fumes, and the whole system is grinding to a halt.
I went to Croydon on Friday to speak not to the managers of the system, but to the people who work in it day to day. Their accounts of how the present system is working are hair raising and their morale is as low as it possibly can be. I accept that the future plans, using a flatter structure, could, in the end, produce better administration, but it is clear that, at present, the information technology is unable to support them. What seems to be a deliberate strategy of not enabling people to focus on their areas of expertise will, in the short term, produce greater delays in decision making. An asylum worker who, perhaps, has experience of handling claims from the Indian sub-continent, and who is now working on claims from former Yugoslavia, will take longer to decide those cases than he would to decide others.
There is chaos and, in anticipation of the brave new computerised world, during the period of growing queues, there have been staff cuts. The 1997 annual report of the immigration and nationality directorate said that the increase in the delay in decisions about after-entry cases had gone up to 99 days, on average, from 88 days in 1995 because of the reductions in caseworking staff. Now we have the cheek to propose charges for that standard of administration.
I am afraid that I do not accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that charges would deliver a more efficient system. We currently charge for the administration of nationality, but it takes 21 months to decide a naturalization

application—applications on which the Home Office nationality directorate made about £1.8 million in profit in 1997.
Faster administration is essential if the provisions are not to be draconian. Expecting an asylum seeker to live in a cashless society may be humane for a short time, but it cannot be reasonable if that is extended, even to the 20-month delay that current applications are experiencing.
Many of my hon. Friends have referred to ways in which the Bill will make the system fairer. Some ways will not achieve enough. For example, the provision creating a bail hearing for those who are detained sounds positive, but it is less stringent than bail provisions in criminal law, where people may pose a real threat to others if they reoffend. That provision is coupled with the new power, in clause 116, for immigration officers to detain someone whom they suspect may have removal directions made against him.
Already, this is the only area of law where people who are not suspected of a criminal offence, or of being a threat to others, can be detained. There is no provision, for example, to prevent the detention of children. Again, the interests of the state in detaining people—usually, I am afraid, for the unacceptable reason of a desire to deter others—are taking precedence over the concerns for the liberty of the person.
I welcome some of the bits of the Bill that are designed to make provisions firmer—for example, action against lorry drivers—but the scale of the new powers for immigration officers is perturbing, including powers to enter and search premises, and to arrest people without a warrant. An immigration officer exercising any of his powers may, if necessary, use reasonable force.
Those powers are potentially dangerous in a service without the extensive training of the police and without the experience, which the police have, of the consequences in other areas of policy of racially administered justice. The immigration service, unlike the police, is not overseen by an independent complaints body. I hope that that will be considered in Committee.
The White Paper noted that past piecemeal efforts at reform had been too complex; solutions in one area had created new problems in another. I fear that the Bill risks suffering from that problem, too. Bolted on to the Immigration Act 1971, which deliberately advantaged white people with ancestral connections to the United Kingdom at the expense of family reunion for people whose home is here, the Bill does not deliver the root and branch reform that we need.
I hope that the Home Secretary's courageous and correct decision to subject this Bill to the Special Standing Committee procedure will uncover the problems that I have only been able to hint at. I hope that it will give us a chance to see the draft regulations and codes in the 58 separate areas where powers are reserved to the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, and that it will enable the Bill, which was devised with the best of intentions, to deliver what we promised: a system that is truly faster, truly firmer and above all, really fairer.

Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and I once lived opposite each other in


Hampstead. It is a pleasure to be linked with her again due to the chronological and consecutive order in which we have spoken in the debate. I am aiming to speak for seven minutes to let other hon. Members in.
I left the previous Government in July 1994, and have had a detailed involvement in the matters of today's debate since the autumn of 1995, when I wrote to the then Leader of the House saying that I feared a degree of interdepartmental incoherence was attending the then Government's review of benefits for asylum seekers. I spoke in the debate on Second Reading of the predecessor to this Bill in December 1995, and in the 90-minute debate on the accompanying social security orders in January 1996. I spoke in the 90-minute Adjournment debate on this subject secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in mid-1996.
In this Parliament, I have not asked the Minister who will reply to the debate to invest his time in meetings on individual constituency cases. As he will remember, however, I brought a generic issue in my constituency to his and the Home Secretary's attention. I shall not dwell on the detail, for we were all agreed at the meeting that we would make more progress on solving the issue if we did not raise its profile. I pay tribute to the Minister for the constructive and imaginative way in which we were received, and to members of his private office for the way in which they have coped with the individual emergency cases that I have loaded on them.
I remarked in another debate that I am one of the two remaining inner-city Conservative MPs in the entire country. It will come as a surprise to some that in both the recent Economic and Social Research Council classifications—the first for the period 1981–92, and the second for 1991–95, both of which were calculated in accordance with current constituency boundaries—my constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster came in the top 50 out of the country's 659 constituencies by all the standard household indices of poverty. The top 50 are the poorest.
The problem for local authorities, which I helped to identify in 1995–96, is significantly assuaged by the Bill, but I have looked at the figures in Greater London for supported asylum seekers broken down by authorities for November 1996 and for January 1998, and in aggregate, but not broken down by authorities, for this very month. The Minister will not need me to tell him of the inexorable rise in those figures—it has been formidable. Westminster's precise place in the league table has fluctuated, but it has been consistently near the top.
In an era when Westminster is periodically vilified—as was exemplified by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who intervened on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and asked him to condemn Westminster practice, which my hon. Friend admirably parried—I am happy to report to the House that a dozen or so London authorities are coming together in a London regional consortium for commissioning and contracting good quality services outside London. I am quietly proud that, despite the intervention of the hon. Member for Harrow, West, Westminster is both housing and managing that consortium.
I remark drily that far fewer than a dozen London local authorities are controlled by the Conservative party, and the fact that Westminster is managing the consortium is an echo of the golden opinions won in this field by the director of social services for Westminster, not least from Mr. Nick Hardwick, the chief executive of the Refugee Council.
I have three questions to ask the Minister. First, I understand the Bill's provisions for dispersal. However, once a determination is made, who will have a statutory duty? If people come back to London and have no other local connection established, what will the arrangements be? Secondly, with no local authority powers or duties relating to families with children who are awaiting a decision, what will happen once a family application has failed? We shall need clear arrangements between the final decision and the act of leaving the country. Thirdly, how will unaccompanied young children from abroad be dealt with after 1 April 1999? Numbers continue to grow, including the number of young people. The Greater London figure this month is three times the size of the figure in November 1996, and that relates not least to eastern Europe. Dispersal is not considered to be a serious option at this stage. Certain questions hang in the air.
Those questions are generic, but I have a personal query that relates to individual constituency cases. All hon. Members representing urban constituencies will have experience of asylum seekers who want a decision from us to discover and advance their places in the various queues. I realise that such requests slow down the overall procedure, but I have not succeeded in persuading either Lunar house or Liverpool to explain their general queueing principles on the basis of territory, so that I can save them the bother of my questions by essaying an approximate answer to constituents myself.
I am generally supportive of the Bill. Certain Labour Members have devoted some of their respective quarters of an hour to attacking the last Government. As one who deals with my fair share of cases, in the last Parliament I calculated that, for every five letters that I received from electors in my constituency, I received a further two from constituents who were resident there, but who were not on the electoral register. I personally hope that the Government will meet the targets that they have set themselves for 2001, and I hope, for their sake, that they have not created a rod for their own back. Those of us who support the Bill in general will mark their progress closely against those targets.
Notwithstanding my general approval, I recognise the various uneases expressed by at least eight well-informed outside bodies that have briefed all of us on the Bill. Every hon. Member has received that briefing, and I dare say the Government have as well. In that context, I am delighted that a Special Standing Committee will be set up to deal with the issues that have been raised. The uneases stir a resonance with me in the comparable field of homelessness. As the owner-occupied element in the housing stock has increased, our human concern for those who are not in owner-occupied accommodation has gradually receded, not least our concern for the homeless. If the Bill improves the overall situation in the field that it addresses, it will place a particular responsibility on those of us who take an interest in such matters to ensure that we do not lose sight of the genuinely disadvantaged in the general euphoria.
I have one last word to say, about an earlier exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). The hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend why he was worried about the possibility that those who had failed every legal test would go to ground, and why he needed to know how many such people there were. I think that my hon. Friend's question was important. Our nation is a great one for fairness, which is one of the pleasures of living here. Those who fail all the legal tests but still stay are cheating the system, and damage the wicket for the law abiding, while generating domestic and indigenous anger with asylum seekers at large. My hon. Friend's question was reasonable, and the Government must give an answer if they are to sustain their overall policy stance.
I fear that I have taken eight minutes. Finally, let me say that I share the concern of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about the 50 or so passages in the Bill that envisage secondary legislation. I hope that the outline of such legislation will be available to the Special Standing Committee. I also hope that the parts of the Bill that the Home Secretary has promised to amend will include clause 74(7)—unless the Minister's winding-up speech can rise to an imaginative parsing of the existing, and incomprehensible, words.

Mr. Marsha Singh: During the debate, it has been established beyond doubt that there is an urgent need for reform and modernisation of our immigration and asylum system. The last Government presided over a system of huge backlogs, delays and widespread abuse. Even after secretly writing off 26,000 people from the backlog, by the end of 1996 they still presided over a backlog of 55,000 unresolved cases, which have fallen into the lap of the Labour Government. That is unacceptable and the Government are now attempting to modernise that system. They have already moved on the primary purpose rule, abolishing it as soon as they came to power.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Singh: No. I have only a few minutes.
That rule was blatantly unfair and unjust and it divided many families.
I welcome the Government's commitment to a fairer, faster and firmer system, but the crucial word is "fairer." No one believes that any of the Bills on immigration or asylum that were passed by the previous Government were fair. In fact, among minority ethnic communities and immigration professionals the belief is widespread that the legislation on immigration that was passed by the previous Administration during their 18 years in power was racist. There is no doubt that in that atmosphere, and with those beliefs, parts of the immigration service have been operating a policy of institutional racism—something which we will hear a great deal about during the rest of the week.
It is my experience that during debates on immigration and asylum, the flames of prejudice are fanned against not just asylum seekers and economic migrants, but British communities of different backgrounds that are lawfully

settled here. That is why sensitivity is paramount when we debate immigration and asylum in the House. I can speak with authority on what happens at grass roots level when those matters are debated insensitively and intemperately.
Genuine asylum seekers flee their homelands not for fun, but because of persecution, violence and repression. Again, I will not accept the notion that economic migrants should be vilified, demonised, or seen as some sort of disease infecting the western world. Economic migration has been part of human history for thousands of years.
It ill behoves us in the west to vilify and demonise economic migrants because Europeans have been engaged in economic migration for centuries; they have certainly been engaged in it over the past 200 or 300 years. I mention just a few of the countries to which they have gone: South Africa, Zimbabwe, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The list could go on, but do we ever talk about Europeans as economic migrants? No. Unfortunately, in this country, it is a term that goes with colour—black or Asian people. I will not accept that. We should learn to accept that Europeans have also been part of economic migration over the years.
The modern counterparts of those European economic migrants seek only to flee the modern poverty and wretched economic conditions that have been inflicted on them through no fault of their own. The long-term answers to their problems lie not in ever stricter immigration control by western countries, but in the eradication of poverty in developing countries.
The sooner that the west collectively undertakes to cancel third world debt, the better. I welcome the action to deal with the matter that has been taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, but we have to make ever more progress on it. Ultimately, affluence and security in developing countries are the answers to economic migration.
I welcome many of the Bill's provisions. Many of my constituents will welcome the right of appeal for visitors, and the fact that that right can be exercised quickly. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said how their constituents, too, will welcome that right. I have had many constituency cases in which relatives of my constituents have wanted to attend family occasions, but were refused permission to do so and did not have a right of appeal. They will very much welcome the provision.
Many of my constituents will welcome the pilot scheme on bonds. Although I realise that the provision is causing some controversy—about its potential effects on poor and rich people, and about the countries in which it will operate—one after another many of my constituents have told me, "My relatives have been refused entry, but we will give you any guarantee you want." What am I to say to them—that no system of bonds or other security or guarantee has been enshrined in legislation? The provision will be warmly and widely accepted by my constituents as it will enable their relatives to come to the United Kingdom for important family occasions.
The provisions on automatic bail hearings for immigration detainees will be widely welcomed, as I welcome them now. Placing management and operation of immigration detention centres on a statutory basis also will be welcomed.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the provisions on licensing immigration advisers and told their horror stories. I shall not take up the House's time with my similar horror stories. However, my constituents who have been ripped off—or who are likely to be ripped off in future—will warmly welcome the provisions.
The Bill contains much that should be welcomed both by the House and by our constituents. However, my hon. Friends have also mentioned some concerns, some of which I share. I am concerned that the Bill contains no provisions for early identification of those who have suffered torture or to prevent detention of those who have suffered torture. Such provisions are crucial. We do not want to throw into detention—or prison—the survivors and victims of torture. Doing so would be inhumane and a retrograde step. I should welcome hearing the Minister's thoughts on the point.
The Bill contains no provision for preventing detention of children. I should welcome the Minister's comments on that matter, too. We cannot be a society that throws children who are asylum seekers into detention centres.
I also wonder—I have not yet made up my mind on the matter—whether extension of the measures on carriers' liabilities will prevent genuine asylum seekers from reaching the United Kingdom. It is precisely genuine asylum seekers who may have the greatest difficulty in obtaining genuine documents, or any documents. I think that bogus applicants are more likely to have documents that are probably fraudulent. I should welcome the Minister's comments also on that matter.
My greatest concern about the Bill is its provisions on the welfare of children and on stopping cash payments. The Bill intends that support should be withheld from families and their children until they
appear … to be either destitute or to be likely to become destitute".
That is not good enough for the welfare of children. It sounds like the "Bear Necessities" policy from "The Jungle Book".
I shall finish now because I am under time pressure. I should have liked to have raised some other issues. This is a complex Bill, which will have a profound impact on the lives of adults and children. I trust that Ministers will listen to the genuine concerns that are raised and will proceed with caution.

Mr. David Ruffley: When contributing to this debate on such a sensitive area of public policy, it is worth reminding the House of the important words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who said that the Conservative party would not
play race at any time, in any way, on any occasion or upon any provocation."—[Official Report, 15 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 38.]
It is important to underline that. I am sure that my right hon. Friend spoke for responsible politicians on both sides of the House and outside. Those words are underscored by the joint declaration, organised under the auspices of the Refugee Council and the Commission for Racial Equality, which said that good practice in the debate

would be to eschew any language that could lead to the generation of hostility towards minority groups who are affected by the Bill. We all agree on that.
It is also common ground that anyone who satisfies the definition of a refugee in the 1951 United Nations convention must be granted asylum in this country if there would be any threat to their freedom or life from being returned to a country because of their nationality, their race, their religion, their membership of a particular social group or their political opinions. The common ground does not stop there. There is some common ground on the measures that the Conservatives passed—the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and the two asylum and immigration Acts in 1993 and 1996.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ruffley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am under time pressure.
The existence of that common ground is proved by the fact that nowhere in the Bill is there an attempt to repeal the central architecture and main provisions of those Acts. The Government could have done that if some of those measures were as bad as has been suggested by some Labour Members. That leads me to the conclusion that the Government approve of the sensible measures in our legislation. We welcome their belated conversion to what we were trying to achieve.
However, I have some grave concerns about the detail of the Bill. Those concerns are echoed by many specialist and well-informed interest groups outside the House. I shall come to them presently.
The number of asylum applications in 1998 was at an all-time high—more than 46,000—and it falls to the Government to tackle the problem. Of the 31,570 cases determined in 1998, 5,300-odd were successful. The rest were deemed not well founded—or bogus, if we must use that often-employed emotive and demotic word. The unfounded claims are the crux of the problem. They are making the system creak and the Government have to do something.
Another reason why action is necessary is the cost to the public purse. In a debate on a humanitarian issue such as this it may be distasteful to talk about money, but the White Paper drew attention to the cost of asylum seekers in terms of education, processing claims, benefits and so on, which is about £0.5 billion per annum. The figure given by the Immigration Service Union is some four times that. Whatever the figure is, the expense is increasing, as the Home Secretary made clear in the White Paper. Action must be taken because genuine asylum seekers are being prejudiced by a system that is not working. The racketeers and those who knowingly make bogus claims are damaging the interests of genuine refugees.
In clauses 1 to 3, the Government set a great deal of store by the new mechanisms for granting leave to enter or remain. My understanding is that they are looking towards greater use of information technology and electronic smart cards. We do not know how that will operate in practice and I hope that the Committee will look into it. There is a need to make the system more efficient, but there are still doubts as to how passports will be stamped and how employers will get information to show them that those entering this country have the proper entry clearance.
The provisions relating to carriers' liability build on Conservative legislation. However, I wish to draw the attention of the House to what could be a perverse incentive for lorry drivers not to declare if they discover an illegal immigrant in the back of their lorry once in this country. There will be no incentive for them to declare that to the authorities because they will not want to be whacked with a £2,000 fine. At present, that declaration would be made because there is no fine. These points have been made by the Road Haulage Association and other bodies representing a hard-pressed industry, made up—quite often—of small businesses which do not need extra burdens.

Mr. Gale: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ruffley: I am more than happy to do so.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Gale: I am relinquishing my attempt to speak in the debate by intervening. I hope that Labour Members will allow me to do so.
The asylum seeker that I had in my home for some six months told me not only how he came into the country, but how he and his friends went out and came back again hidden in lorries, such was their ingenuity. Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister has taken on board what he will do to the road haulage industry?

Mr. Ruffley: I know that the Minister has received extensive representations, which I hope will be considered in Committee.
The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) referred to the proposal for a streamlined, one-stop appeals system, which is to be welcomed. I hope that that will be looked at in Committee. It is common sense for compassionate grounds to be scrutinised within European convention on human rights considerations, as well as other aspects thrown up by the initial interview. At the moment, compassionate considerations are often raised late in the day. They should be raised all at once, and I hope that the matter will be looked at in detail in the interest of efficiency and fairness.
The Children's Society raised a matter that should give us all pause: the operation of a voucher system and the effect that it could have on children of asylum seekers awaiting determination of their cases. Such a system can lead to racial harassment. Labour Members have observed that people could be treated as second-class citizens. Most importantly, without the ability to pay for goods in cash, it is likely that families will not be able to buy medicines or second-hand clothes for children, who will often outgrow clothes pretty quickly. It is not apparent to me how a voucher system will be fairer to vulnerable dependants of asylum seekers. No doubt that, and the other matters that I have raised, will be discussed in Committee. In a spirit of consensus, we should consider the Bill's defects and ensure that they are rectified.

Ms Julia Drown: It is impossible for the Government to get universal support for immigration and asylum legislation. At the one extreme are the pure libertarians who believe in free markets and capital flows

and support the steps that the Government are taking to free up further the international flow of money. They say that if markets are to clear, there should be free movement of people and no immigration controls at all.
At the other extreme are the right-wingers, the racists and people who think that we do too much for refugees and asylum seekers, when in fact 10 other European countries take in proportionately more. Those people say that we should not accommodate one single asylum seeker more. The Government have the difficult task of steering a course between the two extremes.
I recognise that many people without a genuine case apply for asylum, but I believe that we also turn away many genuine asylum seekers. It is clear that the current system does not work. Not only are there unreasonable delays, but bad decisions are often made. Medical evidence detailing horrific physical abuse has been dismissed; evidence is demanded to a standard that it is impossible for people fleeing persecution to obtain; experiences of persecution by genuine asylum seekers are belittled; and refusals of asylum have been based on inaccurate or incomplete information on the political situation in the relevant country.
There is a need to change attitudes as well as the practices, procedures and legislation governing asylum decisions. I recognise that there are concerns about the number of asylum seekers and about how the pressures can create obligations on society that it finds difficult to fulfil, but there is another side: I am proud of this country's reputation for taking refugees. It is sad that there are so many asylum seekers and refugees who cannot stay where they want to: in their own countries. Because of persecution and all the dictators in the world, they have to come here and to other countries to seek refuge.
The Commission for Racial Equality is currently touring with an exhibition called "Roots of the Future", which has visited my constituency. It is a marvellous exhibition, showing what refugees have added to this country in culture, business, sport and public service, and how much richer our communities are for having accommodated them over the centuries.
On some specifics in the Bill, I, too, welcome the regulation of immigration advisers, which is vital; but the tribunals that will hear complaints against immigration advisers, although they can instruct advisers to remit fees, lack further powers. Getting one's fees back following bad guidance is not enough. People who have lost their appeal rights through no fault of their own should have them back. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give those tribunals powers to restore rights to those people who have lost their appeals through bad advice.
I also welcome the proposal to alter the arrangements for the management and operation of immigration detention centres, to make them more open and accountable. As a county councillor in a previous existence, I represented the area that includes Campsfield house, an immigration detention centre. When I requested information from the previous Government I was told that I could not have it because it was commercially confidential. I could not obtain other information because there was no statutory footing for the operation of such detention centres. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the management and operation of those centres will be placed on a statutory footing.
There is growing awareness of the existence of racism in some of our public services, especially after the killing of Stephen Lawrence about which we have rightly heard so much recently. We know that there are problems in the police and there is no reason to believe that such attitudes are not also prevalent in the immigration service and companies such as Group 4, which runs the detention centres. Those issues are especially important when we consider clause 104, which will give immigration officers broader powers, such as to arrest without warrant. I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on that issue. Anyone who knows about the death of Joy Gardner will know how important it is that proper training, safeguards and accountability are introduced now—and certainly alongside the increased powers for immigration officers.
The introduction of automatic bail hearings for immigration detainees is long overdue. A study by Amnesty when the previous Government were in power found that detention was used arbitrarily. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his introduction to the Bill that only small numbers are detained, but some 800 people are detained. I have visited people in detention and seen the hundreds who are there—it does not feel like a small number. Each one of those 800 is someone who is in detention because he is in the immigration process, not because he has committed a crime. Because of the delays in the process, many innocent people who have committed no crime are detained for longer than United Kingdom citizens who have committed crimes. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the practice of detention and to ensure that it is used as a last resort and not arbitrarily to detain a proportion of the people whose claims are being heard. There should be a presumption against detention in those cases.
I hope that the Minister will take note of the recommendation by the inspector of prisons that time standards should be applied to immigration detention. At the moment, there are no time limits on immigration detention, which means that innocent people stay detained for far too long.
I am concerned by clause 16, which will make it a criminal offence for any deception to be used to try to enter the United Kingdom. In the case of refugees and asylum seekers, that is unreasonable. Sadly, there are many dictatorships still in the world. People who work for democracy in such countries are rarely welcome and they and their families often go into hiding. If they are persecuted, they may need to flee. In such circumstances, they cannot come out of hiding and stroll into the passport office or embassy to ask for official travel documents to come to the United Kingdom and claim asylum. That simply does not happen. It is almost impossible for someone who is seeking asylum to get here lawfully. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that clause and find a way to ensure that asylum seekers are not made into criminals because they try to flee persecution.
My constituents welcome the right of appeal for visitors who are refused entry clearance to visit family members. Some of them want their friends to be able to come here too and I hope that in time we will introduce an appeal for them as well.
Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will also consider the introduction of gender guidelines, which have been endorsed by many Members of Parliament and the UNHCR. In this country, the status of women is not yet equal to that of men, but in many other countries women's status is much worse. We need to take that into account when considering the women asylum seekers who are coming here. I hope that the Home Office will adopt the gender guidelines, so that the interests of those women are also protected.
I welcome the Bill. It is a huge step forward and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he replies to the debate, will take on board the concerns that have been expressed today. The key will be in the speed with which the claims of asylum seekers are considered in the future, and I look forward to an improved system of managing them.

Mr. James Clappison: This serious subject calls for a sensitive and temperate debate and, generally speaking, we have had such a debate this evening. Hon. Members from all parties have made interesting contributions, and have shown appropriate restraint.
The powerful contribution from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is worthy of mention. She made some important points about the Bill, and the Special Standing Committee will want to examine some of the questions of detail that she raised, including how the dispersal system will work and the position of children in the new system. She referred to the present state of the Bill, and to the 50 order-making powers that it contains. That point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), among others.
I am sure that many hon. Members will share the view of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who expressed the opinion that, in some parts of the Bill, it is difficult to see what is happening. The Bill clearly needs substantial and detailed scrutiny.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) made a considered and cogent speech, although I note in passing that his view of the role and effects of cash benefits seemed to differ from that of the Home Secretary.
Like many other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) spoke from his experience of dealing with many constituency cases involving asylum seekers. Clearly, he felt some frustration about the current state of the operation at Lunar house, where matters of immigration and nationality are dealt with. He described it as a shambles, as did the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East quoted interestingly from a letter from a constituent who had been trying to obtain a visa for a person from Croatia. That person had been waiting for between four and eight months. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of having discovered that some of the arrangements at Lunar house included moving boxes around between departments and putting them in garages forbidden to staff because of a


possible health hazard. I hope that the Minister will address that matter when he replies to the debate, and that he will refrain from saying that it was a Conservative Minister who put the boxes in the garage or declared the health hazard. These matters cause concern to many of our constituents and deserve to be investigated.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke about his constituency experience in these matters, and about the need to address the problem of people who give bad advice. He asked that the clause 63 provisions covering immigration advisers should also deal with malpractice by solicitors and members of the legal profession as well as by unqualified people who pass themselves off as advisers.
The right hon. Member for Gorton made another important point, which was also touched on by some other hon. Members, about the operation of clause 47. He expressed concern that it would enable people who offer immigration advice to institutionalise appeals on human rights grounds. However, the new right of appeal created under clause 47 may gain much wider currency and will need to be examined very carefully. The Bill purports to set up a one-stop shop for appeals, but it also creates a new right of appeal to an asylum support adjudicator: that and other appeal provisions mean that we will have to examine the proposals very carefully.
We also heard good speeches from several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) who brought his undoubted legal expertise and personal experience to bear. He knows a great deal on this matter, having worked on immigration cases in the legal world, and he raised important points of detail with which the Minister will wish to deal.
In particular, my hon. Friend asked whether Members of Parliament would be among those prevented from giving advice. I understand the Minister to have said that that will not be the case because the Bill's prohibition is restricted to people who give advice for reward. I should be interested to know where in clause 63 or elsewhere in the Bill that prohibition is restricted in that way. My hon. Friend has read the Bill, but he remains worried that MPs will be unable to give advice. Given the experience, of which other hon. Members have told us, of being called on for advice at the last minute, other hon. Members may take a different view, but the Minister should deal with the point.
My hon. Friend also considered that the Bill contained a series of unwieldy measures bolted together. He noted the sweeping powers that will be given to the Home Secretary, but he also, rightly, appealed to us to take a common-sense approach and not to allow our passions to be inflamed.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough made a considered speech that was also based on legal experience. He referred to some of the problems that will arise from the extension of carriers' liability to lorry drivers, as did several hon. Members. That is a serious matter for drivers, owners and those involved in haulage. The Under-Secretary intervened on the point, but I must tell him that there is a difference between, on the one hand, the existing liability on carriers such as airlines, shipping companies and ferries that carry passengers and, on the other, making lorry drivers liable for clandestine entrants who may have infiltrated their vehicles. We must consider carefully whether the Bill will be fair to lorry drivers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) spoke powerfully as a south-coast, seaside Member of Parliament. In particular, he told us of the problems faced by Eastbourne and of his concern that the plight of seaside towns could be worsened by the new support arrangements. He was concerned that the Home Office had embarked on its course without knowing even how many asylum seekers already live in places such as Eastbourne. He cited the British Resorts Association, which saw wider problems. He also cited a letter from the Minister, in which he said that, along with major conurbations, suitable accommodation was likely to be found in seaside towns. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to draw attention to the position of his constituency and other seaside towns which face a lot of pressure these days.
In his very good speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) expressed grave and detailed concerns about the extension of carriers' liability to lorry drivers and firms. He asked about the appeals system, expressing some scepticism as to whether the new system would cost less than the existing one. We shall want to go into that important point in detail in Committee to see whether it is true that the new system will cost less and to consider its general practicability. My hon. Friend believes that the new system will mean a big increase in the cost imposed on the public purse.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster spoke of the particular problems of his constituency, raising three interesting questions. His first point was of great interest to London Members, and the Minister will wish to tell us what will happen under the dispersal arrangements if asylum seekers return to London. The arrangements that are made to cover such cases will be of interest to all London Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), made some important points in a good but necessarily short speech. He rightly emphasised the guiding influence on the Opposition—our desire not to use the Bill as a means to play the race card. It is necessary that we look at the legislation in detail and in the light of common sense; there might be differences, but we must not inflame passions or be over-emotional, so we must be careful in our use of language. The issues are sensitive, for good race relations are heavily dependent on strict immigration control, and that part of the system that deals with asylum has been put under immense pressure.
Anyone wondering how the present situation came into being need only look at the history of the issue in the late 1980s, when, in only a few short years, the number of people seeking asylum rose from 4,000 a year to 40,000 a year. That might not have been properly recognised then by those who now sit on the Government Benches, but now that Labour is in government, they must recognise that fact. As we have heard, the number of applications has again increased substantially, to 46,000 this year; so, too, has the number of outstanding applications. We have to consider carefully the messages that we are sending out and do all that we can to deter those with an unfounded—in some cases, manifestly unfounded—claim from trying to make their application in this country.
We have to consider the position of lorry drivers. Contrary to some assertions, most lorry drivers, if not the vast majority, are responsible, hard-working and decent people. We need to understand how the regime erected by the legislation will affect our lorry drivers. Last week,


we applauded the sentiments expressed by the Home Secretary about the need for people to take responsibility and to avoid having a walk-on-by society. In that spirit, we have to look at how the Bill will affect lorry drivers, because it appears at first glance that the Bill creates a huge incentive for lorry drivers to walk on by.
The innocent lorry driver who, on arrival in this country, finds asylum seekers in his lorry, takes a responsible attitude, chooses not to walk on by and reports them to the authorities will, under the legislation, find himself in a difficult position, for the burden will be firmly on his shoulders to prove that he was not in any way responsible for the asylum seekers being in his vehicle. He will face a tough, draconian system of penalties and detention if he fails to do that. All that puts pressure on lorry drivers, who feel that they are being forced to accept a responsibility which should not fall on them. We shall want to examine the details of the Bill from the perspective of the many lorry drivers and owners who work for or own small haulage firms. We must carefully consider the onus that is being laid on them and take into account the fact that they cannot claim compensation if it transpires that a detention was ill-founded.
The Special Standing Committee will have to examine the asylum support system that is to be established and the important issues of its cost and its practicability. It must also consider that system from the perspective of asylum seekers, with a view to ensuring that they receive humane treatment. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington referred to the risk of racial attacks; we must take that risk into account during our consideration of the Bill and ensure that the Bill is sufficiently flexible to deal with all the circumstances that might arise. As the Bill stands, it is not self-evident that it will be sufficiently flexible.
We believe that there was a strong case for holding an inquiry before embarking on the legislation. Such an inquiry could have considered all the issues—the strength and management of the immigration service; the scale of the problem; the number of asylum seekers who disappear; and the question of why so many people choose to make false and unfounded applications in this country. That is the background which should have been explored. The Bill is a large one, but in many respects it is a package of piecemeal measures to be bolted on to existing legislation. It does not take the comprehensive approach that is necessary to deal with such a sensitive subject, and it places a considerable burden on public funds.
We should have preferred that there had been a comprehensive and wide-ranging inquiry to get to the roots of the problem and to address every aspect of it. We will give the Bill detailed examination in Committee because it certainly needs it. However, that is no substitute for an inquiry that we believe would have done justice to the substantial public interest in this issue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): As the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has said, this has been a very good debate. Hon. Members have considered

the issues—many of which are complex and difficult—and argued many points that will have to be discussed in greater detail during consideration of the Bill. The legislation is the most fundamental review ever of immigration and asylum and is the product of widespread consultation. I assure the House that, in considering the Bill—if the House agrees to the establishment of a Special Standing Committee and during the Standing Committee process—we shall continue to listen carefully and, in constructing this immigration and asylum policy, try to create a consensus regarding how we can produce a system that works.
In the past, the approach to immigration and asylum has often been ad hoc and piecemeal. We want to create a system that works and the spirit of today's debate has shown that that is possible. Many detailed points were raised during the debate and, in the short time available, I cannot do justice to them all. I hope to be able to deal with many of those points in Standing Committee.
As the hon. Members for Hertsmere and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), and my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and for South Swindon (Ms Drown) pointed out during the debate, past discussions of immigration have tended to centre on how tough everyone will be on immigrants. There has often appeared to be a racist subtext. I think that all political parties want to move away from that sort of debate, and I hope that the media will hear the message that the House has sent today and refrain from making those sorts of comments.
We all agree that immigrants have made an enormous contribution to Britain: every area of British life has been enriched by their presence. Looking back over the centuries, I dare say that many hon. Members have an immigrant heritage—and my own is more recent than most. The Government welcome immigrants who are lawfully in this country and who make a contribution to our society. We also welcome genuine visitors. That is one of the reasons why we are introducing an appeal on family visitors visas and why we are piloting the idea of a bond.
Many British people have relatives living abroad who wish to visit this country—and they should be able to do so. Unfortunately, in the past, some relatives have overstayed in breach of immigration rules. That has produced a certain caution in granting visas at entry clearance, which has created a great deal of heartache for many families—particularly British Asian families. The introduction of an appeal will allow a second eye to examine the facts and, we hope, make for better decisions without compromising our controls.
In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) mentioned that, as many family members wish to visit this country to attend weddings and funerals, it is essential that the appeals be heard quickly. We are seeking to ensure that we can deliver fast appeals—indeed, we hope that appeals on the papers can be heard within a week. That is a specific commitment that we shall try to deliver on during development of this law. I was also asked what the fee is likely to be. It will be about £200 for a hearing on the papers or for consideration of the papers and £400 for a full oral hearing. Successful applicants will have their fees refunded.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and others welcomed our proposals to crack down on unscrupulous immigration advisers. My right hon. Friend highlighted the way in which unscrupulous advisers in his area have caused tragedy and damaged the cases of many vulnerable people through their often corrupt, and sometimes merely incompetent, advice. I assure my right hon. Friend that our Bill aims to sort out those advisers. It will be a criminal offence to give advice for gain unless one is registered to do so.
We have also agreed with the Law Society to crack down on incompetent and corrupt solicitors. The Bill contains provisions that enable us to intervene if the Law Society does not act. However, we hope that, under the new relationship that the Law Society has developed with us, we will not be obliged to take over and act ourselves. It has the powers and must now use them to clean up the seedier side of the legal profession.
The hon. Members for Hertsmere and for Woking and others asked about Members of Parliament. I refer them to clause 61(2)(b), which refers to advice given
in the course of a business".
That ensures that Members of Parliament are able to give advice to their constituents.
Eight thousand illegal immigrants were brought into Britain in the back of lorries last year. That is why it is necessary to introduce civil penalties. We have discussed with the hauliers' associations the way to develop a system that works. We have listened to their representations, and will continue to do so; but the important point is that all too often lorry drivers have either accepted bribes—hauliers do not dispute that some have done so—or been negligent in checking their lorries. We know that it can be difficult to check, and we are looking at how to develop a system that enables drivers to do so and which ensures that we do not have illegal immigrants being brought into this country in the backs of lorries.

Mr. Garnier: If the Minister thinks that this is such a lacuna, why does he not introduce a criminal prosecution system rather than a civil penalty system?

Mr. O'Brien: There can be a criminal prosecution when someone who has the intention of carrying illegal immigrants then carries them. That is already provided for in legislation; the Bill simply toughens the penalties for such criminal acts. One of the difficulties is that lorry drivers can simply say, "We didn't know they were in the back." Unless we search the drivers and find the £2,000 per illegal immigrant that is sometimes paid to those who bring them in deliberately—a minority, I accept—it is difficult to prove that they were aware that the illegal immigrants were in the back. It is necessary to have a system of civil penalties.
We are creating a system that works. The objective is not to fine lorry drivers or impound their lorries, but to stop illegal immigrants entering this country in the back of lorries and costing the taxpayer millions of pounds. That should be good for the taxpayer and, in the end, lorry drivers will find that they will have fewer illegal immigrants in the back of their lorries, often destroying their cargoes.
It is the asylum system that has often caused most concern. It is where most mistakes have been made. It can take years to recognise a genuine refugee who is fleeing for his life; it can be years before he can get access to the help that he needs; and it also takes too long to process and remove those who are abusing our asylum system. One of the key ways to sort out the asylum system is by delivering speed to the process, which is what the Bill is intended to do.
In the past, the asylum debate has been polarised between the hard left, which believed that all immigration control was racist and was often prepared to excuse abuse of the system, and the hard right, which claimed that all asylum seekers were bogus. I agree with the hon. Member for Hertsmere that we need to get away from that polarisation and get rid of those inanities. We need to restore integrity to our asylum system.
The common agenda should concern how to create an asylum system that works—works for the genuine refugee whose claim can be recognised quickly, and for the taxpayer in that it will enable us to identify ineligible claimants and remove them from Britain. The common agenda is efficiency. We have not got it at the moment, and delivering it requires not only the Bill but the wholesale modernisation of the administration of the asylum system and of immigration controls at Croydon.
The Government do not underestimate the size of the problem that we inherited. We are determined to face up to it, and we will resolve it. That means regulating unscrupulous immigration advisers, tackling the backlog, reducing access to benefits and giving people rights against arbitrary detention. It means creating more capacity for detention and reducing the opportunities for frivolous appeals. We believe that it is possible to create a balance in the immigration and asylum system. We supported the Human Rights Act 1998 and an ethical foreign policy. We can balance those with firm immigration controls. The best way to do that is to create an asylum system that has integrity and efficiency.
Let me set out how some of the problems in the asylum system developed, because it is important that people understand. The 1951 convention on refugees worked well for 40 years. It had popular support. There were between 2,000 and 4,000 asylum seekers a year, with a couple of thousand dependants.
In the past decade, that system has often been deliberately undermined. To be fair, the Conservatives did not know at first the scale of the problems—few did. In 1989, the number of applications for asylum, including dependants, went up to 16,800. By 1990, it had increased to 38,200. By 1991, it was 73,400.
Several things happened at once. There were international crises that produced genuine asylum seekers following the collapse of some of the communist regimes. People came from Bosnia, they come from Kosovo now, and they come from Somalia. Many asylum seekers are indeed genuine.
What also happened was that racketeers spotted a chance. The immigration doors had closed during the 1970s, but there was a gap—the asylum system. Criminals, racketeers and opportunists moved in to advise people how to make abusive claims. As the number of abusive claims rose, public support for the asylum system fell. Genuine refugees found that public good will was being undermined by the extent of the abuse.
We can all understand why people flee poverty, but the asylum system does not exist for those seeking economic
betterment or economic opportunity. It exists for those fleeing persecution—fleeing for their lives. Those who undermine asylum by making abusive claims are to be condemned.
The aim should be to restore integrity to the asylum system. That means facing up to some tough decisions. Benefits are a magnet for abuse. That is why we will restrict access to them. The best message to deter abuse is for a deported abusive asylum seeker to arrive back home saying, "I tried it on in Britain and they threw me out." We must create a system that delivers quickly and enforces decisions that need to be enforced. We intend to do that.
The hon. Member for Hallam criticised in particular our proposal for vouchers. He characterised it as punishing all for the behaviour of the abusive. I agree that abusive asylum claimants can be blamed for the need to introduce a tougher regime on support, but genuine refugees come for protection. We will provide it. They come for food. We will provide it. They come for shelter. We will provide it. They do not come for a giro, and we will not provide it.
The Bill will ensure that genuine asylum seekers will benefit, because we will make speedy decisions on their cases. Few genuine asylum seekers should wait for more than a few weeks on that form of support. Admittedly, abusive asylum seekers will remain until their appeal enables us to remove them. It is tough, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that it certainly is not unfair.
The Conservatives' call for an independent inquiry is rather bizarre. After 18 years in government and two years in opposition, they still do not have a clue what to do about the shambles that they created in the asylum system. We know what to do. The White Paper set it out clearly. The Bill will change the law to ensure that we implement a system that works.
The Tories complain that I blame them all too often for the shambles that they created in the asylum system. I do blame them for what they did, and I blame them for what they failed to do. I accept that when the new laws are in place and when we have undertaken the administrative changes and modernised the way in which Croydon and the immigration service operate, we will be responsible for what we created. We are in the process of making sure that we create a system that works.
Under the present system, 8,000 economic migrants are coming in the back of lorries, and unscrupulous immigration advisers are making fools of the system. We need to make a change. The Government are prepared to make the change necessary. That is what the Bill does. I ask the House to support it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 346.

Division No. 70]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Bercow, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Blunt, Crispin


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Body, Sir Richard





Boswell, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Letwin, Oliver


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brady, Graham
Lidington, David


Brazier, Julian
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Loughton, Tim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Luff, Peter


Burns, Simon
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Butterfill, John
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Madel, Sir David



Malins, Humfrey


Chope, Christopher
Maples, John


Clappison, James
Mates, Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
May, Mrs Theresa


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Moss, Malcolm



Nicholls, Patrick


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Ottaway, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Page, Richard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Paice, James


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paterson, Owen


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Pickles, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon David (Halternprice)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Duncan, Alan
Ruffley, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
St Aubyn, Nick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Evans, Nigel
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Faber, David
Shepherd, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fallon, Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Flight, Howard
Soames, Nicholas


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fraser, Christopher
Spring, Richard


Gale, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Garnier, Edward
Steen, Anthony


Gibb, Nick
Swayne, Desmond


Gill, Christopher
Syms, Robert


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Gray, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Green, Damian
Tredinnick, David


Greenway, John
Trend, Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Tyrie, Andrew


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Walter, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Waterson, Nigel


Hawkins, Nick
Whittingdale, John


Hayes, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Heald, Oliver
Wilkinson, John


Horam, John
Willetts, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wilshire, David


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Woodward, Shaun


Jenkin, Bernard
Yeo, Tim


Key, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Lansley, Andrew
Mr. Tim Collins.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Ashton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Atkins, Charlotte


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Austin, John


Alexander, Douglas
Baker, Norman


Allan, Richard
Ballard, Jackie


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barnes, Harry


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Barron, Kevin






Bayley, Hugh
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Beard, Nigel
Dawson, Hilton


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dean, Mrs Janet


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Denham, John


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dobbin, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dowd, Jim


Benton, Joe
Drew, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Drown, Ms Julia


Berry, Roger
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Best, Harold
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Betts, Clive
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Edwards, Huw


Blizzard, Bob
Ennis, Jeff


Boateng, Paul
Etherington, Bill


Borrow, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bradshaw, Ben
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brake, Tom
Fisher, Mark


Brand, Dr Peter
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Breed, Colin
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Flint, Caroline


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flynn, Paul


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Follett, Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burnett, John
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Cann, Jamie
Gerrard, Neil


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caton, Martin
Godman, Dr Norman A


Cawsey, Ian
Goggins, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chidgey, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Harris, Dr Evan


Coaker, Vernon
Harvey, Nick


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cohen, Harry
Healey, John


Coleman, Iain
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cooper, Yvette
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hesford, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corston, Ms Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cotter, Brian
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cousins, Jim
Hoey, Kate


Cox, Tom
Hoon, Geoffrey


Crausby, David
Hope, Phil


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Howells, Dr Kim



Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Darvill, Keith
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hurst, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam





Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Oaten, Mark


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Neill, Martin



Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pearson, Ian


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pendry, Tom


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Perham, Ms Linda


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pike, Peter L


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pond, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Pope, Greg


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Pound, Stephen


Kidney, David
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Primarolo, Dawn


Laxton, Bob
Prosser, Gwyn


Leslie, Christopher
Purchase, Ken


Levitt, Tom
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rammell, Bill


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rapson, Syd


Linton, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Livsey, Richard
Rendel, David


Lock, David
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Love, Andrew



McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McCabe, Steve
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rooker, Jeff


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Rowlands, Ted


McDonnell, John
Roy, Frank


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Salter, Martin


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sanders, Adrian


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Savidge, Malcolm


McNulty, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


MacShane, Denis
Shaw, Jonathan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mallaber, Judy
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marek, Dr John
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert



Martlew, Eric
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Maxton, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Spellar, John


Mitchell, Austin
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moffatt, Laura
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Moore, Michael
Stevenson, George


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morley, Elliot
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mountford, Kali
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stunell, Andrew


Mullin, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Naysmith, Dr Doug







Temple—Morris, Peter
White, Brian


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Touhig, Don
Willis, Phil


Truswell, Paul
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wise, Audrey


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Woolas, Phil


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wray, James


Tyler, Paul
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Vaz, Keith
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Walley, Ms Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Webb, Steve
Mr. David Clelland and


Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Keith Hill.

Question accordingly negatived

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 38.

Division No. 71]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coaker, Vernon


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Harry


Atkins, Charlotte
Coleman, Iain


Austin, John
Connarty, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barron, Kevin
Cooper, Yvette


Bayley, Hugh
Corbett, Robin


Beard, Nigel
Corston, Ms Jean


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cox, Tom


Benton, Joe
Crausby, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Berry, Roger
Cryer, John (Homchurch)


Best, Harold
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Blears, Ms Hazel



Blizzard, Bob
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Boateng, Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Borrow, David
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davidson, Ian


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Burden, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Burgon, Colin
Dawson, Hilton


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Caborn, Richard
Denham, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dowd, Jim


Canavan, Dennis
Drown, Ms Julia


Cann, Jamie
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Casale, Roger
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Caton, Martin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cawsey, Ian
Edwards, Huw


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Ennis, Jeff


Chaytor, David
Etherington, Bill


Chisholm, Malcolm
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Clapham, Michael
Fisher, Mark


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Fitzpatrick, Jim





Fitzsimons, Lorna
Livingstone, Ken


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Flynn, Paul
Love, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Foulkes, George
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fyfe, Maria
McDonnell, John


Galbraith, Sam
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Galloway, George
McIsaac, Shona


Gardiner, Barry
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
McNulty, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
MacShane, Denis


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mactaggart, Fiona


Goggins, Paul
McWilliam, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Marek, Dr John


Hain, Peter
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Maxton, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heppell, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hesford, Stephen
Mitchell, Austin


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moffatt, Laura


Hinchliffe, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoey, Kate
Morley, Elliot


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hope, Phil
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mountford, Kali


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mullin, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Hara, Eddie


Hurst, Alan
Olner, Bill


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pendry, Tom


Jenkins, Brian
Perham, Ms Linda


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pike, Peter L


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Plaskitt, James



Pond, Chris


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kemp, Fraser
Purchase, Ken


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Giles


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rammell, Bill


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rapson, Syd


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Raynsford, Nick


Laxton, Bob
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Leslie, Christopher
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Levitt, Tom



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rooker, Jeff


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)






Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Roy, Frank



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Salter, Martin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Savidge, Malcolm
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Shaw, Jonathan
Timms, Stephen


Sheerman, Barry
Tipping, Paddy


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Touhig, Don


Shipley, Ms Debra
Truswell, Paul


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Skinner, Dennis
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Walley, Ms Joan



Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Watts, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
White, Brian


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Snape, Peter



Soley, Clive
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Winnick, David


Spellar, John
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wise, Audrey


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Woolas, Phil


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, James


Stevenson, George
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Stoate, Dr Howard



Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. David Clelland and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Keith Hill.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Baker, Norman
Hughes, Simon (Southward N)


Ballard, Jackie
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Livsey, Richard


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brake, Tom
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Brand, Dr Peter
Moore, Michael


Breed, Colin
Oaten, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Öpik, Lembit


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Cable, Dr Vincent
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Stunell, Andrew


Chidgey, David
Tyler, Paul


Cotter, Brian
Webb, Steve


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Welsh, Andrew


Fearn, Ronnie
Willis, Phil


Foster, Don (Bath)



George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hancock, Mike
Mr. Adrian Sanders and


Harris, Dr Evan
Sir Robert Smith.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63(2) (Committal of Bills),

That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Immigration and Asylum Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor in consequence of the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable by virtue of any other Act; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM BILL

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees) shall have effect in relation to the Immigration and Asylum Bill, with the following modifications:

1. in line 6, leave out the words "four morning" and insert the word "five".
2. in line 7, leave out the second word "three" and insert the word "four".—[Mr. Kevin Hughes]

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
The order is made under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997—the purpose of which, as my predecessor Lord Mayhew said when introducing the Act, is to deal with "how" decommissioning is done. It provides for a limited amnesty that is necessary to enable paramilitary decommissioning to happen, in line with the 1996 report of George Mitchell's international decommissioning body.
The Act sets the amnesty period at just one year, but provides the power for it to be renewed by order, one year at a time, for up to five years. The order therefore extends the period to 24 February 2000.
The amnesty is limited in time and subject to annual renewal by the House precisely because it involves suspension of certain parts of normal criminal law. The amnesty provision ensures that anyone engaged in an act of decommissioning is not exposed to prosecution. It also places prohibitions on the evidential use and forensic testing of decommissioned items. However, it does not mean that either the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Garda will diminish in any way their efforts to find and seize illegal weapons.
I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in congratulating the RUC and the Garda on their successes, including last week's finds of weapons and explosives in Belfast.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Has there been any improvement in the relationship between the decommissioning commission and the RUC, so that the RUC knows when weapons might be moved for decommissioning? I am thinking of the issue that arose when members of the Loyalist Volunteer Force started to move weapons but the RUC arrested them—quite rightly, as they were armed with the weapons and firing them. However, the RUC did not know that the LVF was moving under licence from the decommissioning body.
May I also ask the Secretary of State now—to avoid having to intervene later in her speech—how far we are able to assess parliamentary bodies' willingness to decommission, especially when a story is going round that IRA weapons have been stolen and we remember that the IRA exercises strict discipline in dealing with those who have stolen its weapons?

Marjorie Mowlam: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I believe that the relationships are more harmonious. Not only did all sides learn from the LVF decommissioning, but the decommissioning showed that the process works. It is important to note that the process that was established and that the decommissioning body was following worked in the case of LVF.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked also about the weapons that recently were found and recorded by the police. The police recorded

them as belonging to the Provisional IRA and did not know how long they had been there. It is important to take the issue step by step, as it comes. We must look at it in the round. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will focus on the details. I shall not take my eye off the ball. However, we do not have sufficient evidence on those finds to go any further.
The finds show the success that the Army and the police are having, together with the Gardai across the border. That is worth registering. The most recent development was not just the discovery of weapons last week, but the arrest of 11 people—six in Northern Ireland and five in the Republic—in relation to the Omagh bomb. They have not been charged yet, but the arrests have been made. That shows the effectiveness of the work of the police on either side of the border.
For the amnesty provisions to operate, decommissioning must be carried out in accordance with the scheme that the Government brought into force last June. Similar provisions are also in force in the Irish republic.
The Government's scheme—which is non-statutory—allows weapons to be decommissioned either through the provision of information to the decommissioning commission so it can collect and destroy the arms or by the destruction of the arms by those who possess them. Other options are also open, including handing weapons over to the commission for it to destroy. The essential feature of any method of decommissioning is that it must be properly verifiable.
In making this renewal order I am particularly conscious of the fact that this year we are in a better position than ever to see the verifiable decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. The reason is the Good Friday agreement. All parties to that agreement confirmed
their intention to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, and to use any influence they may have to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years of the Agreement being endorsed, that is by May 2000.
In accordance with the agreement, the two Governments will take all necessary steps to facilitate the decommissioning process. The passing of this order is an essential part of that to continue fulfilling our commitment under the agreement.
I am also conscious that there continues to be a great deal of scepticism in the House and elsewhere about the prospects for decommissioning taking place. In response, I point to the fact that we have had a beginning—small but significant—to the process with the action taken by the Loyalist Volunteer Force last December. The Government welcomed the LVF action, which showed that decommissioning is politically possible for the groups concerned. It was not an act of surrender—no one was humiliated. It was an act of good faith.
The LVF's action also showed that the legislation works. We must thank General de Chastelain and his colleagues on the commission for all their important work to facilitate the decommissioning process.
Nevertheless, the vast bulk of the weapons remains in the hands of the paramilitaries. That is unacceptable. The Government have made it clear to Sinn Fein and to the loyalist parties that decommissioning, though not a precondition, is an obligation under the agreement. It is


what the people of Northern Ireland—including supporters of republican and loyalist parties—voted for, along with all the other parts of the agreement.
We are entering a crucial phase in the political process, leading to the point at which powers can be transferred to locally elected politicians and all the other institutional arrangements in the agreement can be brought into being early in March. It is essential that all parties move quickly to fulfil all the commitments that they have made. That means a start to decommissioning, the Executive being set up and early meetings of the north-south ministerial council and the British-Irish Council.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the Secretary of State return to the recent findings of IRA weapons in west Belfast? How is the finding of primed weapons remotely consistent with the proposition that the political representatives of paramilitaries are committed exclusively to non-violence and democracy?

Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman knows that the weapons were those of the IRA, but we need further forensic information before we know of their exact status. The possession of the weapons is a serious offence and anyone guilty will not be covered by the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. If information emerges, action will be taken. At the moment, there is insufficient evidence. The commitment of the police to seek out all illegally held weapons has been shown, and we should acknowledge our gratitude to the police on both sides of the border for that.
Decommissioning must take place, the Executive must be put in place and there must be meetings of the north-south ministerial council and the British-Irish Council. No one can assume that that will be easy; it never was. Difficult decisions will have to be made, but I have no doubt—the evidence is clear—that the people want these matters tackled, and tackled now.

Mr. John Bercow: Is the Secretary of State morally committed to laying the order annually, irrespective of whether progress is achieved in decommissioning?

Marjorie Mowlam: I do not understand the inclusion of the word "morally" in the hon. Gentleman's question. The order was introduced in 1996 by my predecessor, and part of its nature is that it is laid every year. The order involves the suspension of parts of the criminal law, and therefore must be introduced every year. We are doing so today up to 24 February 2000, and that will continue for the five years for which the order was introduced. That is the nature of the order. The order deals with questions of the process of decommissioning—it is nothing more than that.
We will continue to do our part to make sure that all weapons are taken out of commission, whether by the actions of the RUC, the Gardai or the British and Irish Governments. The order is central to those arrangements, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: The Government have our wholehearted support for the order which, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, renews the amnesty period for a further 12 months under the

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997—not least because, without the order, the decommissioning scheme would become completely moribund and we would be unable to decommission arms, even if we wanted to.
I join the Secretary of State in her praise for the diligent and impartial efforts of General de Chastelain, the chairman of the independent international commission set up under the decommissioning scheme and reinforced under the Belfast agreement. His is not an enviable position, but he is conducting his role with great skill and patience.
Decommissioning seems to be the critical issue in Northern Ireland politics at present. It features in debates about the pace and efficacy of prisoner release, and about who has the right to take up Executive posts in the new Northern Ireland Assembly. It is central to discussion and argument in this House, as well as in the Assembly.
There are only two questions that need answering. First, why is decommissioning so crucial? Secondly, if decommissioning is so important, why has none so far taken place? The answer to the first question—indeed, perhaps the answer to all the questions—lies in the Belfast agreement, paragraph 4 of which stated that parties to the agreement gave their
total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues
and stated their
opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose".
The agreement is unequivocal on force, covering not only its use but the threat of its use. Threats do not emanate only from statements and posturing. The fact that some parties to the agreement are associated with paramilitary organisations with substantial stocks of arms and explosives—they have made ready use of them in the past—is, in itself, a real and tangible threat. In the absence of any statement from Sinn Fein-IRA or the Progressive Ulster Unionist Party-Ulster Volunteer Force that violence is over for good and that they will never again resort to a military campaign to further their ends, the perception of threat will not go away.
The agreement is no less explicit about the ways in which arms and explosives are to be taken out of the equation, and the time scale over which that is to be achieved. It says:
Participants reiterated their agreement to a Procedural Motion adopted on 24 September 1997 'that the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation'".
It further says:
All participants affirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to … use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years".
No doubt those words were extremely well crafted. There was a commitment to total—I emphasise total—disarmament. The reference is to "all paramilitary organisations", rather than military organisations, so demilitarisation of the British Army and its bases in Northern Ireland does not come into it.
The words "use any influence" might sound weak at first, but as we have had an acceptance in the House on more than one occasion that Sinn Fein and IRA are one and the same, the use of that phrase becomes clear cut:


the people involved in the political negotiations are the same people as those in the military organisation. The agreement set up a time scale: decommissioning was to take place within two years.
Decommissioning is crucial to the setting up of the Executive in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The agreement is clear on that point. It says:
Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means, and those who do not should be excluded or removed from office.
Violence has been a common occurrence on the streets of Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement. Punishment beatings—we prefer to call them mutilations—have been widely used by the paramilitary groups associated with the political process to control and intimidate whole communities. The Chief Constable has confirmed that on more than one occasion.
Where is the commitment to non-violence? Only last week, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) focused on that point in a question. Only last week, the RUC found an arms cache. It was confirmed not only that the arms were PIRA weapons but that they were hidden recently, despite the so-called ceasefire that we are supposed to be enjoying.

Marjorie Mowlam: For the record, the Chief Constable said that the arms were PIRA-related, but there was no ability to put a time scale on them.

Mr. Moss: I am grateful for that clarification.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Do you accept it?

Mr. Moss: Yes, of course I accept that important clarification.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understood that a time was established, because the police marked the detonators and they could be seen to be from 1998.

Mr. Moss: We have two conflicting opinions and I am inclined to believe the Secretary of State, who has the latest intelligence reports.

Mr. Hunter: I encourage my hon. Friend not to give credence to the Secretary of State on that point. Primed weapons were moved into west Belfast, and the Secretary of State will know from her intelligence sources that the Provisional IRA do not move weapons into west Belfast unless they are intended for operational purposes. My hon. Friend should stand fast on that point and not accept the Secretary of State's comments. It is clear that those weapons and ammunition were intended for operational use immediately.

Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend has made his point. I do not have accurate intelligence reports from the highest source in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has made a statement in the House and I have to believe her. She will have to stand by the comments that she has made to the House. It is as simple as that.
At another level, how can Sinn Fein-IRA and the PUP-UVF equate non-violence with the holding of weapons and explosives? I am delighted to say that that is now the view of the Irish Taoiseach as well as the Leader of the Opposition in the Dail, Mr. Bruton, who was quoted on 15 January in The Daily Telegraph as saying that the IRA had to disarm if Sinn Fein were to be allowed to take its seats in government. He put it correctly when he said:
How long could a coalition in the Dail work if one of the parties in the cabinet had a private army? We hardly expect different standards to apply in Belfast.
As far as the Taoiseach is concerned, despite the "now he said it, now he didn't" claim and counter-claim, one thing is certain: Bertie Ahern's assertion that there can be no Executive without a start to decommissioning dramatically increased the pressure on the republican movement. His statement that the republican position on decommissioning was "illogical, unfair and unreasonable" produced
gloom, concern and puzzlement in the republican camp"—
to quote one report. From his subsequent clarification, he did that deliberately and consciously. Why should he do that? Various newspaper headlines suggested that he had blown it or lost the plot, or had been too open and helpful in handling the journalist. However, could it be that Mr. Ahern had come to the end of his patience with Sinn Fein-IRA? When he came under pressure from the republican movement, he did not retract. He was courageous in punching home his key message:
Decommissioning in one form or another has to happen … it is not compatible with being part of a government—I mean part of an executive—if there is not at least a commencement of decommissioning, and that would apply in the North, it would apply in the South.

Mr. David Wilshire: My hon. Friend has just said what the Secretary of State said—that there needs to be decommissioning and a start to the Executive. The Secretary of State would not give way to me and therefore did not answer the question about the order of events. Does decommissioning come before the start of the Executive? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that decommissioning starts before there is any question of Sinn Fein-IRA involvement in an Executive?

Mr. Moss: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend and I shall come to that point in a moment. There is no doubt that the Taoiseach sees no disparity or discrepancy between Sinn Fein's public and private position on decommissioning—it will not do it and it has said that it will not do it. Why else should he confront the issue in that way?
On the other side of the argument is the First Minister designate, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his party. He has stated time and again that there is no place for Sinn Fein-IRA representatives on the Executive of the new Assembly without substantial decommissioning. His position is as entrenched as that of Sinn Fein. The only room for manoeuvre, it would seem, lies with the two Governments. Perhaps a third ingredient would be President Clinton's involvement. The party invitations to the St. Patrick's day celebrations in Washington become more significant by the day.
The Taoiseach, it seems, has made his move. When can we expect the Government's response? The Opposition's line on this issue has been consistent from the start.


We want the Belfast agreement to be implemented in full. In case there is any doubt, that means that each and every section must be implemented, without cherry picking. The consensus—except among those who retain their arms—is that, in terms of practical politics, decommissioning is an integral part of that implementation.
After last week's critical vote in the Assembly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) restated our position. He said:
Sinn Fein-IRA cannot become Ministers until they have fulfilled their obligations under the agreement to start proper decommissioning of illegally held weapons and end violence in all its forms.

Mr. William Cash: I hear what my hon. Friend said in respect of a start to decommissioning taking place, and he rightly mentioned that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had called for substantial decommissioning. We know that, from time to time, the Government have a way of talking in terms that appear to be de minimis. Will my hon. Friend be good enough to clarify at what stage decommissioning becomes significant? Even if some decommissioning—or even substantial decommissioning—were to take place, is not the real problem that the threat and the danger to the public would continue to exist if any arms at all are left?

Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, but we are talking about building confidence and about continuing the process begun with the Belfast agreement. We on the Opposition Front Bench have always said that substantial decommissioning should take place but, at the end of the process, we probably would not know whether all the arms had been decommissioned. The fact is that any organisation—in Northern Ireland, in the island of Ireland as a whole or even in this country—that is serious about terrorism can obtain arms tomorrow, if it wants to. What we are talking about is a full and total commitment to peaceful and democratic means.
Since last May, the Government have achieved much, and deserve credit for that. They have honoured—some would say more than honoured—their side of the bargain. The Assembly has been established; the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has gained Royal Assent; the commissions on human rights and equality have been set up; the reviews of policing and criminal justice have begun; there has been an accelerated release of paramilitary prisoners, which is now more than half way through; and the prudent normalisation of security measures has proceeded.
Have the Government been criticised for a lack of willpower and resolve to implement their responsibilities? I have heard no such criticism.
The Irish Government, too, have faithfully implemented their commitments—so much so that the Taoiseach was moved to say, in his recent interview, that
you can't prioritise and bring forward and incrementally do everything and then say we won't even start on the first 0.001 per cent. of this issue".
By the phrase "this issue", he meant decommissioning.
Perhaps I should apologise to the House, and to the Taoiseach himself, for quoting him so frequently in this debate, but we all know and believe that what he said is true. He has given courageous leadership on this critical matter: would that we had had similar quotable words of wisdom from our own Government. They have the

opportunity this evening, in winding up the debate, to tell us unequivocally that they agree with the Taoiseach that there should be no progress towards setting up the Executive of the Assembly until and unless there is a committed start to meaningful decommissioning.
Nothing could be simpler or more helpful in the overall context. The agreement is 80 per cent. in the process of implementation. I do not believe that there can be any going back. There is no alternative around the corner. The Government should be bold and courageous. They should stand firm on the basic principles of the agreement, and they should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Irish Prime Minister and the Irish Parliament in spelling out reality to Sinn Fein-IRA.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Members for North—East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). The hon. Member for Basingstoke referred to the discovery of an arms cache, saying that the arms were intended for operational purposes. I would have preferred him to have said that they would have been used for terrorist purposes. The people concerned are terrorists. They are not engaged in military operations. Purely and simply, they are brutal terrorists. I was surprised at the language used by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hunter: Quite frankly, that is pathetic. In the context in which I used the word operational, it means the most vile, horrific, murderous terrorist operational activities. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not appreciate that that was the point I was making.

Dr. Godman: That intervention was pathetic. Most people who will read the record of the debate will not define "operational" in those terms. The hon. Gentleman is being characteristically pathetic.
The hon. Member for North—East Cambridgeshire spoke about the Taoiseach's interview in The Sunday Times. Since the interview, there has been some to-ing and fro-ing over the semantics of what the Taoiseach said. The hon. Gentleman wondered why the Taoiseach said what he did at that time. A number of factors influenced him, one of which was the outrage felt by the people of the Irish Republic about the verdict in the trial of those who murdered Garda McCabe, but who were convicted only of manslaughter. Irish people were especially shocked by the interventions of Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Adams shortly afterwards on the sentences that the killers received, and on their so-called early release. The overwhelming majority of Irish people would wish those men to serve condign sentences for a horrific murder in the beautiful little village of Adare.

Mr. David Winnick: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the terrible murder of an Irish police officer. Does he agree that both Governments are equally committed to decommissioning and that the British Government have made their position perfectly clear? However, is it not part of the political scenery that a statement from the Irish Government, particularly given


the main governing party in the Republic, may be more important to the IRA than a statement from the British Government would be?

Dr. Godman: As always, my hon. Friend makes good sense. That party can be enormously influential on the thinking of members of Sinn Fein, both north and south of the border.

Mr. Frank Field: May I add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? It is not merely the Taoiseach who has spoken. Did my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) notice that a week earlier, the Irish Deputy Prime Minister made almost the same statement in Australia?

Dr. Godman: I recall that that was so. I have enormous admiration for the Taoiseach; it is not as if he enjoys the majority that our Government do. We would all agree that he was not responsible for the headline on his interview in The Sunday Times, and that what he said was courageous. I do not think that in subsequent statements, he was trying to go back on what he said. He has behaved with considerable moral and political courage, just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done.
On Friday, accompanied by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I shall meet General de Chastelain in Belfast to discuss what he and his colleagues are doing. They face a formidable task, for they are at the heart of the critical issue of decommissioning, but I put my faith in the general, his colleagues in the two Governments and those others who want peace to be maintained in that dreadfully bedevilled province of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: This tends to be a place for simple messages, and it is always a risk to try to move the debate forward. Still, it is a lot less risky than paragliding and these days, I have to get my kicks somehow, so I shall attempt to provide a few insights into what is going through the minds of those who are faced with the expectation of having to decommission.
It must be recognised that we have made a lot of progress. Sometimes, in our debates about impasses, we forget that we have made breakthroughs in matters on which, even two years ago, we thought it would be impossible to get a result.
Although today's debate is taking place within the positive context of that progress, we are faced once again with the issue of decommissioning. The whole House, including the Liberal Democrats, will support the renewal of the order, because it represents Parliament's side of the bargain to ensure that the door is always open to enable those who want to decommission to do so. In addition, it puts moral pressure on those individuals to take their side of the bargain seriously.
It is unfortunate that the Good Friday agreement only sets a date by which decommissioning must have been completed—the two-year deadline—and contains no staging posts within that process. The hon. Member for

North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has pointed out that many of us believe that there is a moral obligation on the IRA and all paramilitaries to demonstrate that they are serious about meeting the two-year deadline by taking some steps towards decommissioning before that date, but technically, that obligation does not appear in the Good Friday agreement, so when one speaks to those people, they say that they are under no moral obligation whatever to decommission before that date.
Such assertions conjure up the interesting image of a whole bunch of heavy goods vehicles trundling up the day before the deadline containing all the arms belonging to the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries, so enabling them to fulfil their obligations in a dramatic fashion. The difficulty for us is that such a scenario does not seem credible: to us, common sense dictates that there should be signs of the decommissioning process taking place over a period lasting many months.
I view the order to be renewed tonight as a way of keeping open the possibility of continuing the process that the LVF has demonstrated can be made to work.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is not the problem that, judging by what Sinn Fein and the IRA have said on the subject, it is not a question of their adhering to some legalistic nicety that gives them until some time next year to complete the decommissioning process, but that they have publicly said that they will never decommission?

Mr. Öpik: I might be an optimist, but I have to say that when I speak directly with those individuals who, I can be pretty sure, represent those organisations, my feeling is that they are saying that they will not decommission now. We could enter into a moot discussion on that point, but I think that we can all agree that, if no decommissioning has taken place in two years' time, that will be an objective outcome: whichever party has failed to decommission will have failed to fulfil its half of the Good Friday agreement, and we are all acutely aware of the consequences of that.
We are currently considering how we can move forward from an impasse. Basically, one side is unwilling to decommission or to provide any sign at all that the guns will be handed in, while the other side is applying pressure—its case is coherently argued—by saying, "If you don't show a willingness to decommission, we will be entitled to exclude you from the Executive". That leads me to my next point.

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman keeps mentioning an impasse. There is only an impasse if one group is trying to prevent something from happening. I have listened to the debate, and I believe that there is no will in the House to state that people should not enter government unless they surrender their weapons. That is in stark contrast to the approach of the Irish Government. As I said by way of intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), both the Irish Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have said clearly that they do not think that there should be access to government until decommissioning has occurred. Therefore, the Irish Government are creating an impasse, but we are not. We seem to be suggesting that we are being carried along by events and that we might review


the situation after two years. I think that the hon. Gentleman is making his contribution within a deeply mistaken framework.

Mr. Öpik: That is what I meant when I mentioned the risk involved. I am providing the perspective—with which I do not have a great deal of sympathy—of many of those who are presenting obstacles to decommissioning.
Turning to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), individuals who are intimately involved in the peace process have created the expectation that decommissioning must take place at this point in order to provide some confidence that the parties really mean it. Incidentally, that is why I echo the comments of the Irish Prime Minister: he has established a moral expectation that individuals will demonstrate their willingness to decommission. My point is that those who oppose decommissioning respond simply by saying: "Where is the time frame in the Good Friday agreement that we are expected to adhere to?" That is the impasse that I am describing.
In case there is any doubt, I am not being an apologist for those who refuse to decommission, but I am trying to move beyond the kind of rhetoric—which is so easy to engage in in the House—that says that their views are without basis.

Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I will give way when I have finished making this point. Regardless of how right we believe we are, it does not serve any purpose not even to attempt to understand the opposing point of view. A superficiality creeps into our debates about decommissioning that is caused by our unwillingness to ensure that we understand the opposing arguments and show that we do, whether or not we have chosen to accept them. Those on the other side of the debate sometimes feel that we do not even understand where they are coming from.

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose—

Mr. Öpik: I will give way to the two hon. Gentlemen and then I must conclude.

Mr. Barnes: The agreement involves not just the two-year provision. It does not follow that, if one side decommissions the day before the deadline, it will be seen to have fulfilled the agreement. The agreement also comprises a commitment to the democratic process and having foresworn any participation in activities involving arms. Those conditions influence our understanding of how the two-year deadline operates. It makes sense to say that we must see some movement towards decommissioning and that it is reasonable to expect those signs before the Executive is established.

Mr. Öpik: I now give way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is making a speech, not listening to a series of contributions by others.

Mr. Öpik: I apologise for my judgment and thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am far too

generous—it has always been one of my weaknesses. I shall draw my speech to a close and other hon. Members may be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I think that we are violently agreeing. The arguments that we are rehearsing across the Chamber are exactly the ones that we must put to those who refuse to decommission. I shall leave the House with one simple point. We need to understand that there is an intransigence based on a kind of logic, which makes sense to those people who refuse to decommission. I do not agree with them; I do not think that it is right for them to act in what I regard as bad faith—

Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I really should not; I need to bring my comments to a close.
It is not right to fail to act in good faith, and it is wrong not to trust the process; but let us make our position clearer by proving to the people who refuse to decommission that this Chamber understands their logic, but chooses to reject it. Let us say that we understand that they are arguing according to the letter of the Good Friday agreement, but that we feel there is a moral imperative at this point—an imperative felt not only by politicians, but by a large proportion of people in Northern Ireland as well as in the Republic of Ireland and on mainland Britain—for them to show good faith by decommissioning.
The message that we are sending by renewing the order is that we in this Chamber are acting beyond the simple letter of the Good Friday agreement and are acting in the spirit of reconciliation, trying to open a gateway to make progress. We now expect others to do the same.
I apologise for being overly generous in accepting too many interventions, but their number and the nature of the debate in the past 10 minutes underline how easy it is to miss the point at our end. They should also be a powerful sign to us of how easy it is for others to miss our point at their end. Our message in renewing the order is simple: "We understand your argument and your logic, but at the moment it is simply not good enough. We need to see more." Everyone here agrees that we need to see more. Most importantly, we are moving beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of the agreement and the spirit of the peace that we are trying so hard to build in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The renewal of this order is a timely event because decommissioning has certainly been the main issue in political debate in Northern Ireland in recent weeks. If decommissioning does not take place in the forthcoming year—the order is being renewed for another year—I regret to say that the whole political process built on the Belfast agreement will collapse.
I disagree with the interpretation advanced by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) of what is required in the Belfast agreement in respect of decommissioning. I say that as one of the three negotiators for the Ulster Unionist party who was involved for two years in those negotiations and knows exactly how every word of the agreement was carefully chosen.
I well recall the Tuesday before Good Friday when we had the first draft of the Belfast agreement, which I dismissed out of hand and said that I would not touch with a 40 ft pole, and rightly so. The Prime Minister came to Belfast that evening, and we had continual negotiation for the next three days, culminating in the revised agreement from which, I am glad to say, many things were removed and to which, I am afraid, some things were added. None the less, there had to be compromise, and on the basis of that compromise we have the Belfast agreement.
Why is the renewal of the order timely? It is timely because all the participants in that agreement had to do something, and almost every one of them, with the exception of Sinn Fein-IRA, has done what was required. Her Majesty's Government were required to commence the release of terrorists imprisoned for criminal offences. I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is listening. There was no time scale for the beginning of the release of prisoners. There was a two-year end-date, but no date for the beginning, yet the release of prisoners has commenced.
The review of policing in Northern Ireland and the review of the criminal justice system—these were commitments by Her Majesty's Government, and they have commenced. There was a commitment by the Dublin Government and the people of the Republic of Ireland that they would recognise Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. This they have done by means of a referendum. There was a commitment by the SDLP that it would enter into a new British-Irish Council, replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement—this it has agreed to do.
I was in Edinburgh on Thursday and Friday meeting the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists. I was glad to find enthusiasm in Scotland for the British-Irish agreement. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), was in Wales recently and also in the Isle of Man. I gather from his press releases that there is encouragement for the beginning of the British-Irish Council.
The Ulster Unionists have also made their contribution. They were not happy with the idea of north-south implementation bodies, but on 18 December, we agreed those with the SDLP and with the Irish Government. The six implementation bodies are ready to go into operation, once we get an Executive in Northern Ireland.
There is only one thing left to happen in order to make the agreement the success that the House wants it to be, and that America, the Dublin Parliament and the peoples in the whole of the island of Ireland want it to be, and in support of which both the European Parliament and the Council of Europe have passed motions.
What is that one remaining thing? It is, of course, decommissioning. Sinn Fein-IRA—the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House has confirmed that they are inextricably linked, and the Dublin Prime Minister has said that they are one and the same organisation, with interchangeable membership—say that there is no need for decommissioning. Well, there is a full chapter on page 20 of the agreement on the need for decommissioning. It is not there by accident. I repeat that it is there as a result of detailed negotiations with all the parties in the Stormont talks, including Sinn Fein-IRA.
Paragraph 1 states that
'the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation'".
Paragraph 3 of the decommissioning chapter goes on:
All participants"—
that includes Sinn Fein-IRA—
accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations
and
to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms".
Here I want to make a distinction from a comment that was made by the hon. Member for North—East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)—I think it was a slip of the tongue. The agreement does not call for total disarmament. It calls for the total disarmament of illegal armaments. It is Gerry Adams who calls for total disarmament. I see that he is away to Australia and already saying that there must be total disarmament—the British Army must have no arms in Northern Ireland, the RUC must have no arms in Northern Ireland, and the farmers must have no shotguns.
None of that is in the agreement. Sinn Fein-IRA, led by Gerry Adams at the Stormont talks, agreed that the decommissioning should be of illegal armaments only. That is what is in the decommissioning chapter. What is most important in that chapter—I ask the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to pay greater attention to the detail of the Belfast agreement—is the fact that decommissioning is specifically and deliberately connected to the chapter on setting up the Executive.
That point did not appear in paragraph 1 of the decommissioning chapter by accident. It was put in deliberately and it was agreed by all the participants in the Stormont talks, including the two Governments, that in resolving the decommissioning issue, we
also recall the provisions of paragraph 25 of Strand 1
of the Belfast agreement.
Paragraph 25 states that those who want to serve in the Executive of Northern Ireland must be totally committed to peaceful and democratic methods. It states:
Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means,
and it continues:
and those who do not should be excluded … from office"—
in other words, such people cannot even get into the Executive.
Some speak of such people being removed from office, but the agreement went further, deliberately. It stipulates that people who are not fully committed to non-violent and democratic means will be excluded from the Executive. That is the way that most people in Northern Ireland interpret the agreement, and it is certainly the interpretation of the main party in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionist party. There is no way that Ulster Unionists will serve in an Executive with people who have not ensured the decommissioning of their illegal armaments.

Mr. Wilshire: May I be clear about what I have just heard? Did I hear it stated that it is a clear, firm policy of the Ulster Unionist party that it will not sit in an Executive with Sinn Fein-IRA until decommissioning in a substantial form has started?

Mr. Taylor: Absolutely. Decommissioning in a credible form must have taken place before we accept


Sinn Fein-IRA in an Executive in Northern Ireland. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman realised that that has been our policy from the outset.

Mr. Hunter: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further? Total commitment to non-violence and democracy must surely mean total disarmament. We are not talking about a few weapons or a few ounces, pounds or tonnes of Semtex in that context. It is total commitment and therefore total disarmament.

Mr. Taylor: When someone tells me what total disarmament is, I will understand what that intervention means. It all depends on one's knowledge of how many illegal armaments there are in Northern Ireland. There cannot be total disarmament until we are aware of the total number of illegal arms. Let us not pursue that. We want credible disarmament so that the people of Northern Ireland can see that decommissioning is under way. Let us not quibble over other words.
Decommissioning is an important issue in Northern Ireland. We very much welcome the intervention of the Dublin Prime Minister, Mr. Bertie Ahern. He analysed the situation accurately, but he is not on his own. As has been mentioned, the Deputy Prime Minister of the south of Ireland did so in Australia last week. Significantly, the annual conference of the Fine Gael party, the main Opposition party which could well form the next Dublin Government, unanimously passed a motion, Saturday week ago, that there must be decommissioning for Sinn Fein to get into the Executive in Northern Ireland. I hope that there will be similar statements from London and Washington in coming weeks.
I am disappointed because I think that Sinn Fein-IRA are not taking this issue seriously. The leader of Sinn Fein, who was elected as a Member of Parliament but has refused to take his seat, Mr. Gerry Adams, is not in Northern Ireland; he is in Australia. He will be away for 10 days, and then he is going on to celebrate St. Patrick's day in the United States. Yet 10 March has been stated by the Secretary of State as the deadline to get the Executive up and moving in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that Sinn Fein-IRA are not taking the issue of decommissioning seriously. If that is so, I regret to say that an impasse will have been reached.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's giving way. He said that the whole thing could collapse in a year's time. Is there anything in the Belfast agreement that would prevent the Secretary of State, even now, from appointing to the Executive those who have honoured their commitment and leaving out those who obviously have not? One bears in mind the fact that it was not in a clandestine position that the negotiator representing Sinn Fein-IRA on decommissioning said that it was not a question of the IRA being unable to decommission, but that it would not.

Mr. Taylor: Everything depends on one's individual interpretation of the Belfast agreement. I would think that Sinn Fein-IRA could be excluded under the terms of the Belfast agreement, but obviously the Secretary of State, at the moment, does not.
It has been said by Sinn Fein-IRA that decommissioning has not happened in other countries. It is important to place on record that some of the main

terrorist and revolutionary campaigns have resulted in decommissioning in order for political and democratic solutions to emerge and to stick. For example, Lebanon can be cited as one of the worst examples that we have had in the past 20 years. In 1989, there was an agreement whereby the green line—it ran for five miles between the Christian and Muslim territories in Beirut—was removed. It is significant that under the Taif accord, which brought about successful political reform, it was insisted that the disbandment and disarmament of all militia should take place. That disbandment and disarmament of all militia—Christian and Muslim—took place in advance of the political settlement.
Likewise in Mozambique, people were trying to get a political process under way without decommissioning. The then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, strenuously rejected that and held fast to the point that elections could be held only after full demobilisation had taken place. In 1994, the United Nations operations in Mozambique confirmed that there had been the total disarmament of the various illegal organisations in that country.
Thirdly, I remember the troubles in E1 Salvador from my time as a Member of the European Parliament. Again, there was an agreement—in 1992—which brought about the total disarmament and decommissioning of illegally held weaponry, in pursuit of peace. A settlement was then achieved, so it is important to place on record the need for decommissioning for peaceful, democratic government to emerge in countries such as Lebanon, Mozambique and E1 Salvador.
There are places where there has not been decommissioning; one is South Africa. Anyone who has been there in the past two years will know that people now regret that they did not have decommissioning before they reached a political settlement. Now there are more illegal arms running around South Africa than there are lawful arms, and the situation is deteriorating in some of the major cities.
The order is timely. We have to achieve the beginning of credible decommissioning to achieve a political settlement in Northern Ireland. We are 95 per cent. of the way to achieving what every Member of the House would like achieve in Northern Ireland, but, at the moment, I remain unconvinced that that will happen. There is less than a 50 per cent. chance of the Belfast agreement succeeding; I still believe that Sinn Fein-IRA will not decommission and that they are determined to wreck the Belfast agreement.
On that note, I shall ask one question of the Secretary of State. Last week, Sinn Fein-IRA were caught by the Royal Ulster Constabulary with firearms—that is the Provisional IRA, which is supposed to be at peace and on ceasefire. In what year were the detonators that were discovered with the explosives last week manufactured?

Mr. David Wilshire: Before I come to the main points that I want to make, I want to pick up on what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said. He suggested that whereas there was in the Republic of Ireland a will to say that there would be, or should be, no entry into an Executive before decommissioning, we had not heard that sort of sentiment expressed in this House.
If I have understood the debate correctly, I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) make that point absolutely and I have heard the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) make the very same point—there can be no entry into an Executive before a credible start to decommissioning is made. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) feels the same and I have made my position absolutely clear. In case I have not, let me restate that there are some Members of this House, and a large number of people in this country, who believe that it is absolutely intolerable to contemplate armed terrorists taking their seats in a democratic Government.
I tried to intervene on the Secretary of State, but was not able to do so. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make clear for this House exactly where Her Majesty's Government stand on the question of entry into an Executive before there is a start to decommissioning. This House and this country have the right to know exactly what is the Government's policy on that matter.
These are my main points. As the House will know, I was unhappy when the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 was first brought to the House and I am still unhappy about this process. I felt then, and I feel now, that the whole act of an amnesty allows bombers and murderers to get away scot free. It therefore follows that I wish we were not doing what we are doing tonight. Nevertheless, I am a democrat and I accept that it was the will of the House that the Act should be passed. I have no objection to us continuing, having started down this track. I do not intend to force a Division. The House will want to renew the order.
I have little doubt that the few of us present tonight will be back again next year and the year after to extend the period, because we are wasting our time. Sinn Fein-IRA have never had any intention of decommissioning—and they never will. Do not take my word for it: listen to Sinn Fein-IRA, which have made it clear that there will be no decommissioning. Let us come back next year and have another go, and see whether we can persuade ourselves that this is a good idea.
I understand only too well why the Government want to fudge the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. If they do that, they can justify to themselves—and they can try to justify it to the country—that they can, after all, allow armed terrorists into an Executive.

Marjorie Mowlam: The Government are implementing the Good Friday agreement, which the party leaders in Northern Ireland agreed to and for which the people voted. The agreement says clearly—this is our position—that decommissioning must take place and the Executive must be formed. Both must happen for the Good Friday agreement to work.

Mr. Wilshire: The right hon. Lady has yet again not told us in which order that must happen. Will the Minister, when he winds up, please tell us in which order those two things must happen?

Marjorie Mowlam: If it would help the hon. Gentleman, I can explain that it is up to the parties to decide in which order that takes place. The parties,

with the Government's support and encouragement, must find a mechanism to move this process forward. They have done so in the past on other issues, and I believe that, with the will and determination they have shown, they can do so again.

Mr. Wilshire: If I understand that intervention correctly, the Secretary of State is saying that she is prepared to contemplate allowing armed terrorists into an Executive. That is nothing short of abject surrender to the gunmen.

Mr. Hunter: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we are witnessing is a process of appeasement that morally corrupts the appeasers? The Government give way every time inch by inch simply to keep the process going. We are witnessing a moral corruption of government and a corruption of moral authority.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is how he and I have always seen it.
I also understand only too well why the Government claim that there is no proof that the recent find of arms has anything to do with Sinn Fein-IRA. It is convenient to claim that there is no link, because that way they can pretend that the ceasefire is still in place. I also understand why the Government are prepared to believe the wholly spurious claim that Sinn Fein-IRA weaponry has been stolen. When it is used, it is possible to fudge the issue yet again by saying that it was not used by Sinn Fein-IRA.
I also understand only too well why the Government are always talking about a start to decommissioning. If they are pushed hard, they may call it a meaningful start, which perhaps means two bullets rather than one. I also understand why the Government keep talking about tokens of good faith. The one thing we can never accuse Sinn Fein-IRA of is having good faith.

Mr. Barnes: Sinn Fein-IRA may not have good faith, but they are subject to influences and pressures from other people. Their involvement in intimidation and terror has been highlighted, so they have backed off in the past fortnight. They have done so because attention has been drawn to such activity in the House and elsewhere. If we advance such arguments, we have the moral authority to shift opinion. Even more important, opinion in the Irish Republic and throughout Northern Ireland will help to change the position.

Mr. Wilshire: I am sure that those who would have had their kneecaps smashed and their ankles smashed and their elbows smashed are grateful for a fortnight's respite; but I do not think that tells us a great deal about what will happen.

Mr. Barnes: That is an obnoxious response. I have tried, in the House, to aid bodies such as Families Against Intimidation and Terror in order to ensure that such action stops, and I have always seen that as an attempt to secure decommissioning in the end. If we stop exile, beatings and intimidation, we shall move a stage further, and the prize will be decommissioning. The hon. Gentleman may not like what I have said, but I very much dislike the response that I have just received from him.

Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman feels that I was being personal in regard to him, let me put the record


straight. I know of his integrity in these matters, I know of his hard work and I know of his commitment; 1 did not seek to cast aspersions on his approach. As far as I can see, however, any sort of token decommissioning will not get us anywhere. This is the slippery slope towards moral corruption that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. Sinn Fein-IRA have enough Semtex to spare a tonne of it, and still murder and maim thousands of people in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain. There must be total decommissioning of all paramilitary arms and explosives—a point made by the right hon. Member for Strangford.
However often we return to the House to renew the order, terrorists will always be the same. Terrorists keep arms for one purpose, and for one purpose only: to use them to kill people, and to obtain ever more concessions from those who are foolish enough to try to do deals with them. However much this Government twist and turn, in the end all they are doing is seeking to appease killers, bombers and maimers. History teaches us—if we only care to read it—that appeasement is always doomed to failure.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I shall try to be brief, as I realise time is short.
I welcome the renewal of the order. When we discussed the whole question of the agreement last year, it was obvious that, to a certain extent, the agreement involved an act of faith: that the peace process could be got moving, and that a momentum would be maintained. It seems to me that one of the features of today's debate—and I certainly enjoyed listening to the contributions—is that there is a growing crystallisation and unanimity about some of the next stages of that peace process, which is moving away from simply the minutiae of the detail of the agreement to what is actually required to bring lasting peace to Northern Ireland. In that context, decommissioning is clearly central, and it always seemed to me that it would be central when we discussed the agreement last year.
We cannot predict what will happen. Certainly, the Government have my best wishes and my good will to bring about what appears at the moment to be very difficult, but I must tell the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) that it has seemed to me from the various discussions that I have had that the position of Sinn Fein-IRA on this issue has not been to look at legalistic niceties within the agreement, but to make blanket proclamations that they do not intend to decommission. If that is indeed their intention, this peace process is going straight into the sand. That seemed to me to be the case when we discussed the agreement and looked at the legalistic niceties last year, and it seems to me that it remains the position this year. It is therefore greatly to be hoped that the pressure that has been spoken about—not just by what we say in the House, which I dare say will carry very little weight, but by those outside and, indeed, in other countries—may be brought to bear on Sinn Fein, so that it can see the advantages of moving and showing that it really intends to maintain a peace process. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was right: that is clearly very difficult in view of the culture of violence and of the gun that has prevailed in Northern Ireland. I share his view that we in a democratic assembly sometimes forget that there is another world—the other

side of the mirror—which, to those who participate in it, appears to have equal validity, even if we as democrats have abandoned it. Therefore, it is a difficult transition to make. I agree with his comments on that point.
All we can do is hold the door open. What we are doing by passing the order and renewing it is holding that door open. On that basis, I welcome the order and hope that the parties start to move through that door.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The debate has been brief, but interesting and, in some ways, thought provoking. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for their thoughtful contributions. Both hon. Members always add balance to the debate. We are grateful for that.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—someone who has been very close to the whole process—made a major contribution. Obviously, the Government will take his points into account. Clearly, he is very close to the negotiations, discussions and the whole process. He knows the way in which the issue can be moved forward and the momentum maintained. I read from his comments that he wants the Good Friday agreement to work. He knows that that is the overwhelming view of the people in Northern Ireland. It is important that that message is put across: it is a difficult process, to which we are trying to find answers.
When it was last debated, the order was dealt with in Committee. Representations were made by the Opposition to have it debated on the Floor of the House. There was no objection from the Government. We felt that it would be useful, but it is interesting to note that, having made those representations, the shadow Secretary of State is not here. There may be good reasons why he is not here. I understand that he was in Northern Ireland today. I just make the point that I and, more important, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have had to come back for the debate in the middle of a very difficult process. There has been a discourteous approach by the Opposition. I do not object to the debate taking place on the Floor of the House, but I hope that we can get a much more serious contribution from Her Majesty's official Opposition on the issue.
Not all parties from Northern Ireland are represented in the debate. That reflects what the right hon. Member for Strangford and others have said. It is an important order, but it should be approved and not used as a vehicle for other debates, with hon. Members trying to widen the debate into other areas.
I cannot stress too strongly how important the draft order and the subject of decommissioning are. They are critical to the whole process and underpin the Good Friday agreement. As the Secretary of State said, the draft order will allow for an extension of the period during which there can be the amnesty from prosecution for offences, mainly possession related, committed by people during decommissioning. Without it, there would be no decommissioning, which is, after all, a voluntary process that, but for the provisions of the 1997 Act, would put people at risk of prosecution.
I want to make it clear that there must be decommissioning. It is an essential part of the Good Friday agreement, which all parties to the agreement endorsed


and said they would urge others to achieve. The agreement is not something from which one can pick and choose the bit one likes and will abide by. All parties who have endorsed the agreement should take early action to show their commitment to it.
The right hon. Member for Strangford listed the various matters dealt with in the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—on which the Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland have made progress and which fell to them to implement. They operated with no time scale operating against them, but with a determination and commitment to create an entirely new environment in Northern Ireland. We have started to do that against very difficult odds, after facing up to some very difficult conditions.

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister answer a very simple question? Does he endorse the statement on decommissioning that the Taoiseach made the other day and that has been mentioned several times in this debate? Yes or no?

Mr. Ingram: The Taoiseach speaks for himself, and the hon. Gentleman should read what he said both in that interview and in the Dail. The Taoiseach speaks for himself, and we do not speak for the Irish Government. We say that both processes must move forward. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said both in her opening remarks and in response to similar interventions, there are two strands to the process—decommissioning and the Executive. They must happen; otherwise, we shall not have continuation of the Good Friday agreement. That is the reality. It is the complex environment in which we operate, and the matter to which we are trying to seek agreement.
The matter rests not only with the Government, or with the two Governments, but with all the parties who signed up to the Belfast agreement. No one said that the process would be an easy one or that it was a matter simply of reaching agreement and, the day after, of everything falling automatically into place. If Opposition Members think that that is how peace processes work, they have not been living in this century or understood the lessons of history.

Mr. Wilshire: I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want to speak for the Republic's Government, but will he speak for the British Government? Will he tell us, please, whether the British Government will allow into the Northern Ireland Executive armed terrorists before they have started decommissioning? Will the Government sanction such entry, or will they not?

Mr. Ingram: The Secretary of State already answered that question, and there is no point in my trying to find different words simply to repeat what she said.
I want to quote from a letter to the Leader of the Opposition that was written on 6 January 1998 by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). He wrote:
I had absolutely no doubt that its 'Peace Process' was doomed to failure and that the Talks were going nowhere.
Within months of that letter being written, we had the Belfast agreement and had made substantial progress, both

in the referendum and in the commitment of the parties to take the process forward. Progress continued right up to December and beyond it, into the new year.
I do not want to enter into debate with the hon. Member for Spelthorne as his speech was over the top, and I tend to ignore such speeches. However, his speech was deeply offensive to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to other Labour Members who are trying to move the process forward. We are not appeasers of terrorism—which is the most outrageous statement to make about any right hon. or hon. Member. The Government—like previous Governments—have been resolute against terrorism. That is why we have committed so many brave men and women—in the RUC and in the armed forces—to defend the democracy that we want to uphold in Northern Ireland. We shall continue to do so.
I do not want to get involved in a debate with the hon. Member for Spelthorne, as the judgment that he demonstrated in his letter to the Leader of the Opposition shows that his opinions, which may be strong ones, are misplaced.

Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ingram: I shall not constantly give way. The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to make a speech in the debate but has only intervened in the speeches of other hon. Members. He could have collected his thought processes and made a speech, but—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members say that he could not have done that, but I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. He decided not to make a speech.
We have already seen some decommissioning. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the LVF has decommissioned weapons through the independent commission. We can only hope that that action will be followed by others.
Decommissioning not only can happen, it must happen, and I am certain that it will happen with the determination and commitment of those who hold illegal weapons in Northern Ireland. The question is no longer whether there will be decommissioning, but when terrorist and paramilitary groups will start the process. The sooner they do, the better it will be for everyone. The order provides a framework for the process to be taken forward and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft Diplomatic Privileges (British Nationals) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Badgers

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. [Betts.]

Charlotte Atkins: In May 1997, just days after I was elected, a planned cull of badgers in my constituency was stopped. Understandably, that caused much anxiety among local farmers and ensured that badgers and bovine tuberculosis quickly became a key priority for me as a new Member of Parliament. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for having received a delegation of six farmers from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean), with whom I share the debate. He also took time to visit the farm of Mr. George Richardson at Ham in my constituency to discuss the problems that badgers posed in his environment. Sadly, I have learnt since then that Mr. Richardson's farm has gone down with TB. On that farm the Minister saw how difficult it is for farmers to follow Government advice on keeping badgers and cattle apart.
Over the past decade the number of cases of TB in cattle has risen steadily. Although the west country is the traditional stronghold of the disease, it is spreading rapidly in Staffordshire, particularly along the border with Derbyshire. During 1998 there were 30 confirmed TB herd breakdowns in Staffordshire, but the most worrying fact is the rate of increase of TB incidence, at around 30 per cent. year on year. The other main concern is the virulent strain of TB that seems to be prevalent in Staffordshire.
Following the Krebs report, the sum of evidence strongly supports the view that badgers are a cause of bovine TB outbreaks. However, due to the previous Government's failure to grasp the nettle there has been no proper experimental study to enable firm conclusions to be drawn about the effectiveness of badger culling and other methods of controlling the disease, so I strongly support the Government's decision to implement the culling trial. We must establish whether the culling of badgers influences bovine TB cases and which culling strategy is the most effective. I was disappointed that, given the spread of the disease in Staffordshire, the area was not declared a hot spot. That would have allowed careful examination of the worrying local situation.
There is frustration in my constituency that nothing seems to have happened locally since the cull was stopped in May 1997. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is acutely aware of the hardship and real trauma caused by TB breakdown, having met some of my local farmers. He should be congratulated for increasing compensation to the full market value of infected cattle. Farmers in my area have told me how grateful they are for the increased compensation, although, as my hon. Friend will recognise, those facing prolonged periods of shutdown suffer substantial additional losses. The National Farmers Union has calculated that the new compensation arrangements meet only 16 per cent. of the costs of the breakdown. I quote the figure to indicate how desperate farmers become at the prospect of a herd breakdown.
I would like to read a short letter that I received last week from Christine Chester, a dairy farmer from Foxt in my constituency. She wrote:
Dear Charlotte, As from yesterday we have become another statistic in the Tuberculosis in cattle story. We have previously had over 40 years clear of TB in a closed herd, i.e. no bought in cattle. What have we done to deserve this? I am old enough to remember the cost and effort of clearing the country of TB in cattle in the 1950s-60s. I never thought we should have to go through it all again.
I am concerned about the way in which some farmers and wildlife trusts have reacted to the problem of badgers. They should be working together, rather than fighting each other. My biggest fear is that farmers will take the law into their own hands. It has been reported to me that poisoning is going on around the Wetton area in my constituency. It has been said that potatoes have been injected with strychnine for badgers to pick up. No one wants that to happen. Most farmers are caring about their animals. There is a real concern that badger numbers are getting out of control. Their main predator now is the car, which kills twenty times the number that the Government propose to cull.

Mr. William Cash: As a Staffordshire Member of Parliament, may I put on record that I welcome the remarks of the hon. Lady, and look forward to hearing from the Minister that compensation will be suitable in the circumstances, and that adequate resources will be made available to deal with the problem?

Charlotte Atkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
The Woodchester park experiment has found no relationship between population density and the incidence of disease in badgers.

Mr. David Drew: I am no expert on Staffordshire, but the Woodchester park research station is in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key improvements that could be made is an effective testing regime, not just for cattle but for badgers?

Charlotte Atkins: I agree, and it is vital that we get the testing right. Concerns have been raised about the culling programme in Devon. It would be a disaster if we were to embark on a cull of badgers and a testing regime on cattle—which can be stressful for all concerned—if no reliable data emerges from the trials.
One of my main concerns is that it seems that the badger population has increased by about 76 per cent. in 10 years. That raises the question of ecological balance, and particularly the influence of badgers on other animals, such as ground-nesting birds. I represent an area with a strong tourist industry—an area of great natural beauty. People come to the area to observe the wildlife, and there is concern at the effect of TB on wildlife and on the local tourist industry. Inevitably, there will be opposition to the culling, and I recognise the strongly held views of animal welfare groups. However, I believe that TB is not good for cattle, badgers or people, and we must get this right.
Up to 50 per cent. of TB cases are likely to be outside the trial areas—in places such as Staffordshire, Moorlands. Action must be taken in those non-hot-spot areas. It is not realistic to expect non-trial areas to wait until at least 2005 before action is taken. I urge my hon.


Friend the Minister to consider those non-trial areas and ensure that the Ministry presses ahead with advice and work with the farming industry to evaluate different animal husbandry methods and ensure that we keep the spread of disease under control. I also advocate the early and comprehensive recommencement of post-mortem examination of badger road casualties. Wildlife trusts should co-operate in that experiment; very often, badger carcases are quickly removed from the roadside.
Many more resources should go into developing a vaccine and into scientific research on the health and growth of the badger population. We do not have enough information at present.

Mrs. Janet Dean: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) on securing this debate on a subject that is extremely important to both our adjoining constituencies. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to take part.
My hon. Friend read a profound letter from her constituent. I can also remember the cattle being tested for TB when I was growing up on a farm in the 1950s. It was a time when herds were gradually regaining their TB-free status. My parents, like other farmers, hoped and prayed that there would be no reactors to the tests each time those tests took place. That was especially significant to them as my father had had TB himself in the 1930s.
In the years that followed, some parts of the country, unfortunately, continued to have problems with bovine TB, but in most areas it was considered a problem of the past. One of the farms in my constituency had been free of TB since 1952; and that farm also has always had a closed herd. Therefore, when there was a reactor in August 1997, it was clear that the infection could have come only from the land itself. Over the next few months, the farm continued to have reactors, losing 42 of its 90 cattle.
Thankfully, there have now been two clear tests and my constituents can only assume that that is because they have ceased to use for grazing any fields where there is evidence of badgers. That means that they have ceased to graze 20 of their 65 acres. I certainly hope that the herd remains clear. If it does, with my constituents' expensive husbandry methods, that could provide vital evidence both on how to contain TB in cattle and on the connection with the badger population.
Such good husbandry experiments need to be evaluated, even though they are, as my hon. Friend said, currently outside the trial cull areas. It is also vital that, if there are any lessons to be learned from the trial cull areas as the experiments take place, action should not wait until 2005, especially if it is likely that there could be any delay taking the trial beyond that date.
It is important that animal welfare groups, badger groups and farmers work together in the next few years, for the sake of the badgers and the cattle. No one wants any animals to be slaughtered needlessly. It is essential that there be full co-operation with the trials to ensure that the experiment is valid. It is important to monitor the number of badgers and their condition without interference, and that badgers remain protected outside the designated cull areas.
As my hon. Friend said, farmers on the Staffordshire-Derbyshire border who are affected are disappointed that their area has not been included in the trials, especially as there has been a rapid spread of herd breakdowns in an area where a cull had been due to start in 1997 and where it seems that there is a virulent strain of TB.
My constituents were grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for meeting them and listening to their concerns. They welcome the Government's decision to pay the full market value of infected cattle. However, as my example of the way in which my constituents have tried to protect their cattle from infection shows, good husbandry can be expensive. Indeed, on some farms, it may be impossible to isolate the cattle from the badgers.
It is essential that we establish once and for all the connection between the badger population and the incidence of bovine TB. It is essential that we show whether the number of badgers in an area is significant. We must find the best way to contain the problem until the ultimate solution of a cattle vaccine is a reality. I know that the Minister is well aware of the problems that bovine TB has caused to many farmers. This is a sensitive subject, but it is vitally important to the welfare of badgers, cattle and, ultimately, human beings.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) on securing this debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) and other hon. Members who are present tonight. This is a serious issue and the Ministry and I have taken it seriously. Indeed, in a few weeks' time I will appear before the Agriculture Select Committee, and I have run a check on my activities. As a Minister, in 22 months, I have had 40 separate meetings or visits with farmers and scientists to discuss the issue. It is constantly before me in my work as a Minister.
It is to the credit of the previous Government that they set up the Krebs inquiry, because if they had not done so we would have had to do something similar. As it was, we had Professor Krebs' report by December 1997. I take full responsibility for stopping the badger removal operation, or cull, moving into new counties before the Krebs report was published. Four farms in Staffordshire were expecting badger removal operations and I have met some of the people involved. However, I decided, supported by my ministerial colleagues, that it did not make sense to continue a policy that clearly did not work into new counties before the publication of the Krebs report. Apart from any other issue, we might have needed areas to conduct trials of the very nature that Krebs in the event recommended. That does not satisfy the farmers in Staffordshire but as my hon. Friends know—and I am grateful for their comments—I have visited the farms and met the farmers in my office in London and I know the situation at first hand.
The incidence of TB in cattle in Great Britain has been rising since the early 1980s, with a much more significant rise in recent years. Nearly 4,000 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered in 1997. I do not have the final figure for 1998, but it will be more than 6,000. The number of incidents in 1997 was 515. We already know that in 1998


there were at least 720 and we expect that there were 30 more, although it can take six to eight weeks to complete the tests and they sometimes have to be repeated. That is why there is a caveat with regard to the figures—but we expect a 40 per cent. increase over 1997.
In Staffordshire, there were no TB incidents in 1994, but there was a worrying increase to 24 in 1997. In 1998, we have had 30 confirmed incidents so far, an increase of 25 per cent. Indeed, for the first time in many years, TB has been confirmed in the Moorlands constituency and I have discussed that with my hon. Friend the Member for Moorlands.
There are no easy fixes. No single policy option is available to the Government to fix or solve the problem—hence our adoption of the recommendations of Professor Krebs, which have been put into practical effect by the independent expert group, chaired by Professor Bourne. As the scientists point out, our multifaceted strategy will allow us to come up with a sustainable policy for controlling and eradicating TB in cattle. It is not the Government's policy to eradicate the badger: it is not an endangered species in this country.
The five-point strategy announced last August put the protection of public health first and gave due weight to our commitment to animal welfare. Until around this time last year, my Ministry and the Department of Health were not checking human cases of TB to determine the exact strain, but we are now monitoring all human cases for M. bovis.
The long-term strategy is to develop a vaccine: 10 years ago, such a vaccine was 10 or 15 years away, and that is still the case. We intend to devote a lot more money to the development of a cattle vaccine. We took all the bids and made the relevant assessments last autumn, and we shall announce the details of our research programme for the next financial year.
In addition, we have a strategy for looking at research projects so that we can better understand how the infection is transmitted. Whoever finds the route of transmission that infection takes will win a Nobel prize, but as yet it is not known.
We also have policies for the detection and prevention of cattle-to-cattle spread. At present, we are examining the arrangements to see whether they can be strengthened to stop the spread of the disease in the short term.
In addition, there is the culling trial. From what some hon. Members and commentators have said, it would be possible to believe that we are doing no more than holding the culling trial. In fact, that is only part of the overall strategy to find a way to control and eradicate TB in cattle.

Mr. John Burnett: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I appreciate the generosity of the Minister in giving way, but I feel that I must point out that Adjournment debates such as this are the personal possession of the hon. Member who moves the motion. That hon. Member—in this case, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins)—is entitled to a full ministerial reply. This is not a generalised debate. It is about tuberculosis

in Staffordshire, and other hon. Members who intervene are taking away from the hon. Member who has been given the opportunity of the debate time in which she can get a full reply.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon will understand what you have said.
Of course, the culling trial is not taking place in Staffordshire. So far, we have announced only the first two triplets, which will take place in Devon and Cornwall, and in Gloucester-Hereford. We did not successfully complete the culling strategy in one of those triplets. At present, we are in the close season of February, March and April, when no culling will take place in any event. In the near future, we will be in a position to make the decisions involved in organising the strategy for the summer.
I have to say that there was some minimal interference with the trial in December. The policy is to take 10 triplets of 30 areas in the country, and I do not know whether Staffordshire or other parts of the country will be chosen by the expert group for the other triplets. It is clear that there are areas in Staffordshire where the problem is very severe indeed, but I do not know whether the incidence there is sufficient to make up three triplets for the strategy to be operated for the culling trial.
The Government and the independent expert group have said that decisions to choose the triplet areas for the reactive, proactive and survey-only culling will be taken on the basis of the latest available information. That is very important for farmers in Staffordshire and other areas that are not traditional hotspots for the disease. In other words, we shall not be looking at the sort of snapshot that was examined by Krebs three or four years ago. The latest information—which of course will be from 1998—will be assessed this spring. If a pattern is detected in the change of breakdowns, areas of the country other than the south-west will be chosen.
I am grateful for what has been said about the increase in compensation. It was right to increase it to 100 per cent. of market value, with no upper limit. Farmers who have come to my office, and whom I have gone to see on their farms, have been literally broken men as they have watched their prize beasts, worth thousands of pounds, go down with TB. Those farmers were paid next to no compensation under the old system: at least today we can offer them the market value of the beast. I accept that compensation amounts to only about 16 per cent. of the total loss of a farmer, and the previous policy provided about 11 per cent. That comes nowhere near compensating for the effect of the distress on the farm and the loss to the farm of income and other support. It is, however, the best we can do at present.
We are spending a considerable amount of extra money, allocated under the comprehensive spending review, on vaccine research and on the trial. For vaccine research, there will be more than £1.5 million. We were severely criticised by the Krebs report for putting proportionately more money into compensation and testing than into looking for a vaccine. We shall spend about £16 million on testing and compensation, and the trial will cost nearly £10 million in addition to other work.
I do not know where the triplets will be, but I want to emphasise that participation in the culling trial areas is entirely voluntary. There is no compulsion.


The Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food do not have the legal authority under the Animal Health Act 1981 to conduct a compulsory experiment for the trial. A press release has been issued today on behalf of organic beef farmers which refers to our debate and to the Select Committee on Agriculture's inquiry. However, farmers in the triplet areas who do not wish to participate do not have to. There is no compulsion, and there never has been.
Some landowners have allowed us to survey for badgers, but not to cull them. We have had a good response in the Devon and Cornwall area where the trial took place, and the results are still being analysed. The scheme is entirely voluntary, and not every farmer wishes to participate.
I do not see widespread badger culling as the answer. There is a problem for farmers outside the culling trial areas. When all 10 triplets are up and running, they will cover only a very small part of the land area of the United Kingdom, and a small part of the areas affected by tuberculosis. Our only real hope lies in the work that we are doing to check other wildlife species for strains of TB, the road accident surveys that we shall start in the new financial year, and the advice and guidance that we shall publish in conjunction with the National Farmers Union on husbandry techniques.
The latter is no criticism of farmers' existing husbandry techniques, but we are trying to review all the areas in which there has been a breakdown in the past. That has not been done before, but we want to consider all the evidence from breakdown areas to see whether there is any pattern. There may be an environmental pattern or a weather pattern or some other lesson that we can learn from previous incidences that would allow us to give information to farmers in other parts of the country.
In the areas of the south-west where the great hotspots are, there are massive numbers of breakdowns already, but there are also areas including farms that have never had a case of TB even though there are badgers on the farms. There is a great contradiction that makes it

extremely difficult to conduct a policy. Farmers and those in the food production chain need to know that we have a policy, but we cannot have a policy without firm information and valid science to underpin it. We have not had that in the past, and no previous strategy has worked, as is proved by the rising incidence in current herd breakdowns. If previous policies had worked, we would not be where we are now.
We have no long-term plan to eradicate badgers, even though we are doing so in a small area of 10 sq km in each of the 10 triplet areas. We intend simply to test our strategy, and we shall not know the results for two or three years. We cannot base our policy on the trials of the first or second years, for which we shall not have the results until the following year.
I cannot give my hon. Friend the answers that she seeks, but I hope that I have given the House some indication of how seriously the Government take the problem. We have put in far greater resources for the new financial year starting in March, and we have doubled the number of employees that we are recruiting to the wildlife unit to ensure that we can do the job properly. We have to take care of MAFF staff, who have a difficult job: they are out all hours, in all weathers, and firearms are involved in their work. I am not prepared to have the safety of MAFF staff put at risk in any way and I do not want anyone to take the law into their own hands, for that would interfere with the validity of the trials and would not help farmers in the long run.
The badger is a protected species, but it is not endangered—there are people currently serving gaol sentences for interfering with badgers. We shall operate the law as set down and as we are required to do. There will be no free-for-all and no one is encouraging farmers to take the law into their own hands, because that will not serve the purpose of finding a policy to control and eradicate tuberculosis in cattle, which is our basic objective.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.